SOME LESSONS FROM AGRICULTURAL ...

9 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size Report
Nyarurembo Hill. 75. Sagitwe ..... of our problems, many people still see technology as the light at the end of the tunnel that will save ...... Boston: Beacon Press.
S U S T A I NABILITY A S A N I N H E R E N T L Y C O N T E X T U A L C O N C E P T : S O M E LESSONS F R O M AGRICULTURAL D E V E L O P M E N T

A Thesis Presented to The Academic Faculty

by

Jennifer Robin DuBose

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology June 1994

SUSTAINABILITY A S A N I N H E R E N T L Y C O N T E X T U A L C O N C E P T : S O M E LESSONS F R O M AGRICULTURAL D E V E L O P M E N T

Approved:

B. Norton, Chairman cs.

^

-.

J^Sokolovsky

Date Approved by Chairperson,

6>*20

Ill

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to extend m y appreciation to all who contributed to this work. I would especially like to thank Dr. Bryan Norton, m y thesis chairman, who found time in his busy schedule to read over drafts of this thesis helping m e clarify m y ideas. I a m also thankful to the other members of m y thesis committee, Drs. Sokolovsky and Chameau, whose insightful comments helped m e see the issue from different viewpoints. Much of the credit for m y academic achievements must be given to m y mother, who instilled in m e a great love of knowledge. M y family's understanding and moral support while I further postponed m y entrance into "The Real World" has meant a great deal to me. I would also like to thank m y friends, especially Clayton, for tolerating m y obsessive work habits and listening to m e ramble on incessantly about this thesis. I a m indebted to m y friends in Zaire, especially Paul Mukwampamba, for providing m e with an experience that I continually draw upon. Most of all, I a m grateful for all the encouragement from people who believed in me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT LIST O F T A B L E S SUMMARY CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION General Statement of the Problem Establishing Definitions Definitions of Sustainability Definition of Technology Research Questions Research Strategy Framework for Analysis

II.

IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT

III.

AGRICULTURE A N D T E C H N O L O G Y The Essence of Agri-Culture Sense of Place Agricultural Technologies Top-Dow n Approach Bottom-Up Approach Choosing a Scale for Evaluation

IV.

THE GREEN REVOLUTION Project Overview Design and Implementation Project Outcome Sustainability

V.

Conclusions

51

I N T E G R A T E D PEST M A N A G E M E N T

54

Project Overview

54

Design and Implementation

55

Project Outcome

57

Sustainability

VI.

Conclusions

59

Z A M B I A C A N A D A W H E A T D E V E L O P M E N T PROJECT

62

Project Overview

62

Design and Implementation

63

Project Outcome

64

Sustainability

VII.

66

Conclusions

68

T E R R A C I N G IN N Y A R U R E M B O , U G A N D A

72

Project Overview

72

Design and Implementation

74

Nyarurembo Hill

75

Sagitwe Hill

78

Sagitwe Crater

79

KarambiHill

79

Project Outcome

Vm.

58

81

Nyarurembo Hill

81

Sagitwe and Karambi Hills

83

Conclusions

83

CONCLUSION

86

BIBLIOGRAPHY

90

vi

LIST O F T A B L E S

Table

Page

3-1

Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Agricultural Technologies

36

6-1

Zamcan Wheat Project Sustainability Assessment

67

7-1

Socioeconomic and Ecological Characteristics Influencing Terracing Type

77

SUMMARY

This thesis contributes to the discussion of measuring the sustainability of technologies, not by working directly on the development of a metric, but rather by investigating the types of things which must be taken into consideration in such a metric. It is argued that the sustainability of a technology cannot be measured by looking only at the technology in isolation. Sustainability is not an element found within a particular technology or application of technology; it exists only in the connections that are made between that technology, the people using it and affected by it, and the environment. In order to measure the sustainability of a technology it must be examined within the spatial and temporal context in which it will be employed. Important elements that interact with technology and thus influence the sustainability of a technology include the natural environment, society and culture. To demonstrate the importance of the surrounding context in determining the sustainability of a technology, four case studies from agricultural development are examined: the Green Revolution, Integrated Pest Management, the Zambia Canada Wheat Development Project and terracing in Nyarurembo, Uganda. In these case studies community-level variables are shown to have a significant impact on the success of agricultural technologies. The implication of these findings is that w e must be careful about how we attempt to measure sustainability. A method for evaluating or measuring sustainable technologies must include variables from the appropriate scale. Because the appropriate scale for evaluation and the specific variables that influence a technology's sustainability within

Vlll

that scale, differ by technology, a generic metric is not possible. The sustainability of technologies can only be measured by a flexible metric or by metrics designed specifically for different types of technologies. When w e pronounce a technology sustainable it must be clear that its sustainability is context specific and does not apply to other contexts. By acknowledging the important role that context plays, the development of a realistic and useful tool for assessing the sustainability of technologies is realizable.

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In an attempt to move sustainability from rhetoric to reality, discussions of sustainability have taken on a more practical tone. Instead of only discussing the theory behind sustainability and advocating its adoption, people are begining to talk about the ways in which we can implement sustainable projects and technologies. A n important part of operationalizing sustainability is the newly emerging idea that w e should develop a method for measuring the sustainability of technologies. B y measuring the sustainability of a technology before it is adopted it is hoped that w e will be better equipped to achieve sustainable development. This thesis contributes to the discussion, not by working directly on the development of a metric, but rather by investigating the types of things which must be taken into consideration in such a metric. It is argued that the sustainability of a technology cannot be measured by looking only at the technology in isolation. A successful measure of sustainability must take into account the context which surrounds a technology. This will be exemplified through an examination of case studies of agricultural technologies which demonstrate the importance of local level variables in determining sustainability.

General Statement of the Problem This shift toward taking concrete steps to make development sustainable is reflected in the literature on the subject. Although no one has yet discovered a fail-safe

2

method for achieving sustainability, an attempt has been made at least to focus on particular cases in which a project, technology or development program was successful in moving toward sustainability. 1 By looking at successful cases, instead of only examining failures, it is hoped that w e might find some clues as to how w e can best work toward sustainability. Lessons from successful projects are only of limited use because specific projects cannot always be replicated. The most useful tool for achieving sustainable development would be the ability to evaluate the sustainability of projects, policies and technologies before they are implemented or introduced. Although no such measures have been developed for evaluating individual technologies or policies, some related work has been done. These discussions are still somewhat theoretical but are at least concerned with discussing ways in which measurement could begin to take place. For example, some authors discuss the composition of resources necessary for sustainability^ while many others focus on developing an indicator of sustainable

*For examples of this see: Instructions for a Sustainable Future, a document created for the Local Government Honours Programme of the U N honoring exemplary sustainable development initiatives by 12 local governments from around the world authored by International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Bankrolling Successes: A Portfolio of Sustainable Development Projects by Reid et al., a positive look at multilateral development bank projects, published by Environmental Policy Institute and National Wildlife Federation; also of interest is What Works: An Annotated Bibliography of Case Studies of Sustainable Development, by Slocombe et al., which directs one to many other sources of success stories in an attempt to give practical information on sustainable development. Another example is the "From the Ground Up" series published by World Resources Institute and African Centre for Technology Studies which reports on successful projects that exemplify local sustainable development in Africa. ^I a m thinking here in particular about discussions of sustainability as the conservation of capital and whether or not natural and man-made capital can be substituted for one another. Establishing the composition of sustainability is a step in the direction of developing a metric to measure it. This issue is discussed by David Pearce in his article "Economics, Equity and Sustainable Development", and Herman Daly in "Toward Some Operational Principles of Sustainable Development"; also interesting is Peter Victor's discussion of the subject in "Indicators of Sustainable Development: Some Lessons From Capital Theory."

3

economic development to replace current national income accounting methods. 3 Perhaps even closer to a metric are the general indicators and models that have been developed to assess the sustainability of regions or cities^ and in some cases specific indicators have been developed for evaluating the progress of particular cities.^ While there is some value to being able to measure whether or not a particular community or economy is sustainable, what w e really want to know is how to move an unsustainable community towards sustainability. Inevitably this will occur with changes in our actions that result from new policies and technologies or at least new applications of previously existing ones. It would be quite useful if a metric could be developed to measure the sustainability of actions or applications of technologies before selecting a particular course, instead of having to guess which actions are best for taking us toward sustainability. Before w e going any further down the path toward such a measure, it is essential to stop and contemplate the nature of the characteristic w e are trying to measure. Old ^See For the Common Good by Herman Daly and John Cobb, Robert Repetto's The Global Possible, Roefie Hueting's article "Correcting National Income for Environmental Losses: A Practical Solution for a Theoretical Dilemma," and also Faber and Proops article "National Accounting, Time and the Environment: A NeoAustrian Approach." 4peter Nijkamp and Jeroen Van den Bergh have developed a model that includes regional economic and ecological interactions to determine whether or not the conditions are sustainable. They have published several articles on the subject: "Operationalizing Sustainable Development: Dynamic Ecological Economic Models," "Aggregate Dynamic Economic-Ecological Models for Sustainable Development," and "A Dynamic Economic-Ecological Model for Regional Sustainable Development." There has also been work done to identify the key issues that will play a part in measuring the sustainability of cities; see articles by Walter Corson of the Global Tomorrow Coalition: "Measuring Urban Sustainability," and "Changing Course: A n Outline of Strategies for a Sustainable Future." ^ T w o such efforts come from the state of Washington where the cities of Olympia and Seattle have made impressive progress towards identifying key indicators of sustainability in their communities. Their draft documents are entitled The Sustainable

Seattle Indicators of Sustainable Community and State of the Community: A Sustainable Community Roundtable Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Socie in the South Puget Sound Region.

4

ways of thinking lead us to isolate and segregate technology, promoting the idea that w e can evaluate it in a vacuum; yet technology and policy always occur in a physical and cultural environment. Sustainability is not an element found within a particular technology or application of technology; it exists only in the connections that are made between that technology, the people using it and affected by it, and the environment. Nothing can be by itself sustainable, it must be sustainable for a particular culture and society given a particular physical setting.

Establishing Definitions Because of the proliferation of definitions, any serious discussion of sustainability or sustainable development must be prefaced by the establishment of a working definition. Thus to avoid any uncertainty, a brief appraisal of the different sorts of definitions of sustainability and sustainable development is given followed by the selection of one definition to be use in the thesis. There will also be a short discussion of the particular definition of technology that will be employed in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

Definitions of Sustainability The most frequently used definition of sustainable development is the one developed by the World Commission on Environment and Development: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" ( W C E D 1987:43). While this definition is not particularly descriptive, it does contain several key elements that are a part of all sustainability definitions; the idea of insuring that future generations should be able to provide for themselves in a satisfactory manner, and specifically that there are human

5

needs which must be provided for with limited resources . The differences in definitions emanate from disagreements over the details of how this requirement or obligation toward future generations can be fulfilled. One popular variant defines sustainability as development that leaves the future with a sufficient combined quantity of natural and manmade capital to maintain the present or higher standard of living. This definition is based on the belief that no particular set of natural goods must be preserved for sustainability — manmade capital can be substituted for natural capital. This viewpoint is advocated by the famed economist, Robert Solow, w h o states that sustainability is an "obligation to leave the future the option or the capacity to be as well off as w e are; "this can be accomplished by leaving adequate resources, be they natural or manmade. "[G]oods and services can be substituted for one another... what w e are obligated to leave behind is a generalized capacity to create well-being, not any particular thing or any particular natural resource" (Solow 1993:181-182). Another school of thought, termed the ecological economic perspective by Bryan Norton, views sustainability as requiring the preservation of crucial natural resources. H e discusses the difference between this perspective and the economic perspective, as espoused by Solow. "Sustainability within the economic paradigm is sustainability of human welfare through the sustenance of the productive capacities of the economy; sustainability in the ecological paradigm makes essential reference to crucial productive capacities of ecological processes and systems" (Norton forthcoming: 16). In other words there are some natural resources which are not substitutable at any price because they serve a necessary function in the ecosystem. There are threshold levels of natural capital that, once passed, a resource may be gone forever.

6

W h e n the natural capital in question becomes critical or essential, there may be little or no room for a tradeoff or substitution with other forms of capital.... many environmental scientists ... are concerned that future generations will inevitably be worse off if these critical systems are degraded now and that it may prove impossible, or at least very difficult, to compensate them by building other forms of capital. Such critical capital stocks need to be passed on intact (Pearce and Warford 1993:54). Whether or not one believes that manmade capital is substitutable for natural capital, it is impractical to require that the store of all natural resources remain intact, since w e cannot continue to exist on this planet without altering or possibly diminishing the stock of natural resources. Non-renewable resources in particular are difficult, or impossible, to maintain because even at a low rate of use the quantity would be decreased and eventually depleted. There is no reason to stipulate that non-renewable resources must be preserved completely. Forbidding their use in the present for the benefit of the future is illogical since the future would be restricted as well, and thus would not derive much benefit from our preservation efforts. A s a solution to this conundrum Herman Daly has suggested what he calls "quasi-sustainable use of nonrenewables." This entails that as we consume non-renewable resources w e should set aside funds that could be used either to compensate future generations for their loss or for the development of a renewable substitute (Daly 1990:4). Other definitions take a more ethical tone, positing particular forms a sustainable society would take rather than simply establishing the amount or composition of resources that should be saved for the future. Some authors point out that once the logic of preserving the earth for the well being of future generations is established it is not too difficult to draw a parallel to the disparities in well being that currently exist. W h e n sustainability is couched in terms of equity between present and future generations "you are almost forced logically to think about equity not between periods of time but equity right now" (Solow 1993:185). This brings into the definition

7

an obligation to work toward lessening disparities in the distribution of resources among groups of people within the same generation. This not only has the benefit of reducing conflict between the "haves" and the "have-nots" but also reduces environmental degradation since it is often those on either extreme of wealth w h o most exploit resources (Gallopin, Gutman and Maletta 1989:395). In addition to issues of equity, some definitions stress the importance of preserving local cultures and empowering communities. "Socially sensitive interpretations of sustainable development emphasize the opportunity for a return to community values, local control over resources, community-based development and other forms of decentralized government" (Rees 1990:22). It is argued that in order for a course of development to be sustainable it should be compatible with the local culture by respecting the structure of the society and values of the people (Dower 1992:114). Ignacy Sachs, w h o took the lead in popularizing sustainable development, gave this definition in 1974: "A style of development that, in each ecoregion, calls for specific solutions to the particular problems of the region in the light of cultural as well as ecological data and long-term as well as immediate needs" (quoted in Hettne 1990:186). These definitions modify sustainability from being a concept concerned with meeting the minimum needs of future populations to one concerned with present physical and spiritual well-being as well. 'Sustainable', by definition, means not only indefinitely prolonged, but nourishing for the self-actualizing of persons and communities. The word 'development' need not be restricted to economic activity, much less to the kind of economic activity that now dominates the world, but can mean the evolution, unfolding, growth, and fulfillment of any and all aspects of life. Thus 'sustainable development', in the broadest sense, may be defined as the kind of human activity that nourishes and perpetuates the historical fulfillment of the whole community of life on Earth (Engel 1990:10).

8

While I agree with many of the ideas that are expressed in the more ethically and culturally aware definitions I feel that the inclusion of these ideas in a definition of sustainability can be excessively restrictive. The more conditions that are attached to the concept of sustainability, the more opportunities there are for debate. A definition of sustainability should capture the essential elements without including any extraneous elements, no matter how desirable these elements may be. With this in mind I have chosen to adopt a definition that incorporates the minimum requirements of sustainability without specifying the details of how these requirements must be achieved. From this point on the term sustainability signifies "the indefinite survival of the human species (with a quality of life beyond mere biological survival) through the maintenance of basic life support systems (air, water, land, biota) and the existence of infrastructure and institutions which distribute and protect the components of these systems" (Liverman et al. 1988:133). This is an anthropocentric definition focusing on preserving natural, social and manmade resources as are necessary for the survival of the human species. While infrastructure and institutions are perhaps not explicitly mentioned in other, more familiar definitions, I do not find their inclusion in the definition troubling; these two elements seem entirely necessary for the preservation of adequate resources, which is the core idea of sustainability. A s the definition indicates, institutions and infrastructure are essential tools both for reorienting and monitoring our influence over our resources. B y adopting a minimal definition I hope that m y conclusions will be widely applicable.

Definition of Technology One could argue that "technology" is even more ambiguous a term than "sustainability." In the discussions which follow, the term "technology" shall be taken

9

to mean "the application of knowledge to the achievement of particular goals or to the solution of particular problems" (Moore 1972:5). As an application of knowledge, technology must in some way be observable, to keep itfromcollapsing into merely an idea. But this is not to say that technology is limited to machines or tools. The equation of technology with its mechanical manifestations is not merely too limited a conception of useful knowledge; it is also a wrong one. As knowledge of art or craft, which the word 'technology' literally means, it exists in men's minds or in symbols and drawings on paper well before it takes form in processes or products or other palpable results (Moore 1972:6). Technology then is a method of doing things, a way to achieve a particular result. This purposeful action, or applied knowledge, can include many diverse types of things such as methods of preventing pest damage, planting, new seeds, and ways to farm on hillsides, in addition to mechanical devices such as tractors and irrigation pumps. The case studies presented in this thesis deal with agricultural

technologies,

just development projects. Although I limit m y examples to cases of technologies used in Third World°\ agriculture it should not be forgotten that the conclusions are applicable to all technology.

Research Questions The thesis is designed and researched in such a way that these questions can begin to be answered. These questions provide a purpose and direction for the thesis. •

In what way is sustainability contextual?



H o w is context important for measuring the sustainability of technologies?



What is the proper scale for evaluating technological sustainability?

^Throughout this thesis I will use the terms "Third World," "developing countries," "lessor developed countries" and the "South" interchangeably. I recognize that some people have opted not to use "Third World" any longer, but I feel that it is no more packed with implications than any of the other options and adequately serves the purpose of communication.

not

10



What are the consequences, in development projects, of taking sustainability to be a purely technical aspect (i.e. ignoring context)?



What are the consequences, in development projects, of treating sustainability as a contextual concept?



What are the implications of thesefindingsfor measuring sustainability?

Research Strategy To demonstrate the importance of context this thesis will discuss sustainability in terms of agricultural technologies used in development projects. The case study approach will be used to add real-world support to the thesis that sustainability is contextual. Agriculture is a relationship between humans and physical systems; as such, when development is attempted, both aspects need to be considered. Sustainability of agriculture is not simply determined by the physical setting, but also by its interaction with the people who are very much a part of this agriculture. The culture of a people and their socio-political conditions influence the way that agricultural technologies are employed, the extent to which they are useful and their impact on the environment. Because of this, projects which may appear to be scientifically or technically sustainable may not be sustainable in every cultural context. In order to implement sustainable agricultural development, consideration must be given to the local context of the physical and social environment. This thesis examines four case studies based on agricultural development projects in the Third World, comparing projects that are considered successful at achieving or moving toward sustainability with projects that seemed promising but nonetheless did not succeed. The focus will be on top-down versus bottom-up development, comparing projects from each of these approaches, examining the ways

11

they deal with technology. The intention is to compare these approaches to development on their success at achieving sustainable development and to determine what factors led to their success or failure. The cases include two large scale programs, the Green Revolution and Integrated Pest Management, and two smaller projects, the Zambia Canada Wheat Development Project and Community Terracing in Uganda. I chose to use agricultural projects as m y example mainly because it is the area of development of which I a m most knowledgeable. Agriculture is also the sector that receives the most attention from development agencies thus providing m e with a wealth of possible case studies. Because so many agricultural projects are undertaken by these agencies, finding out what makes some of these projects succeed and others fail in terms of sustainability could have a major impact on many future projects.

Framework for Analysis In analyzing the different case studies the following questions will be investigated: •

W h o initiated the project?



W h o were the project designers?



W a s the project flexible and adaptive?



W a s the technology used appropriate for the locale?, W h y or why not?



W a s the final impact on the environment positive, negative or neutral?



Did the project achieve its stated goal?



Overall did it represent a step towards sustainability? This framework will facilitate the comparison of vastly different projects and

also be useful in determining what factors were associated with successful projects and what factors were associated with unsuccessful projects. Each case study chapter

12

follows the same outline to lend continuity to the argument and to facilitate comparisons among the cases. These chapters open with a general project overview to give shape to the origin, actors, duration and goals of the project. Then the chapters turn to design and implementation issues, paying special attention to the ways in which particular technologies were chosen and put into place. This section also includes discussion of the level of information project designers have regarding the area in question. After the development of the project has been discussed, the outcome of each case is analyzed in depth looking at whether or not the goals were achieved, with particular emphasis on sustainability. Each chapter then concludes with an examination of the factors in the project that led either to its sustainability or unsustainability. The argument for the importance of context in evaluating the sustainability of technology is laid out in Chapter Two. Chapter Three introduces agricultural technologies and the appropriate scale for analyzing their sustainability. The case studies which provide support for the thesis are found in Chapters Four through Seven. The findings of these case studies are summarized and the policy implications for the development of a metric are discussed in Chapter Eight, the concluding chapter.

13

CHAPTER H

THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT

Although there are a significant number of articles mulling over the various definitions of sustainability in an attempt to locate the one "right" definition, for the most part there appears to be a sense of complacency with this ambiguous term. Like a liar who tells a story so many times that they begin to believe it is true, w e breathe life into "sustainability" with each utterance. In some circles it is so c o m m o n a term that its meaning is no longer questioned. It is as though sustainability has earned status as a real thing-in-the-world; it has successfully achieved thinghood and the term points to a real thing that need not be questioned. This phenomenon is exemplified in the discussions regarding a metric of sustainability. Attempts to measure sustainability contain both a recognition that the term needs to be made more concrete along with a belief that it can be concrete. This may seem to be a mundane point, but it is worth emphasizing that sustainability is an idea or concept rather than something concrete. "[S]ustainability is a vague concept. It is intrinsically inexact. It is not something that can be measured out in coffee spoons. It is not something that you could be numerically accurate about" (Solow 1993:187). Instead of referring to a particular physical thing it refers to a quality that inheres within a technology or practice. In other words, we can only meaningfully speak of sustainability of an economic system, a technology, a development path, etc. — it has no real independent existence and must be attached to something.

14

While other attributes such as color or temperature can be ascribed to isolated objects, this is not the case with sustainability. It is somewhat of a misnomer to say that a technology in and of itself is sustainable. This is not to say that therefore nothing is sustainable or that sustainability cannot occur — it is simply that our way of speaking of sustainability is imprecise and misleading. Sustainability does not describe a quality that resides within the confines of an individual technology or practice but refers instead to the nature of the relationship between the technology and its context. The reason that we have been able to communicate the idea of sustainability while being so imprecise, is that instead of

assuming

specifying

the context w e have been

a context. Sometimes this can work, particularly when we are speaking

about global issues or things which affect the context in which the speaker and the listener are both situated. Even though communication is often successful, there are still important reasons to be aware of this distinction; it is dangerous to forget the significant role that context plays, especially in light of the current attempts at measuring sustainability. W h e n w e talk about global environmental issues such as the depletion of fossil fuels and the pollution that results from burning them, it is given that any proposals for sustainability take into account the estimated world stock of fossil fuels and the earth's assimilative capacity; it is assumed that any proposals for solving a global problem would take place within the context of what we know about this earth. Since all sustainability issues are not global a smaller spatial scale is often more appropriate forjudging proposals. W e judge the sustainability of a proposal by the relationship between the proposed activity and its context. Important elements in that context include the natural environment, society and culture. Sustainability is like an equation composed of many

15

variables reflecting different aspects of culture, the environment and society.? Sustainability occurs when these elements interact with the proposed activity or technology in a way that allows all three to continue a healthy existence indefinitely into the future. N o one element can by itself indicate sustainability, it is the nexus of relations between elements working in harmony that indicates sustainability — like an equation for which an answer cannot be derived from one variable alone but requires the interaction of the variables for solution. Where economic activity or, more generally, a way of human life, is concerned, this sustainability will depend on economic, social (including cultural and ethical), and ecological factors. These factors are themselves interdependent, so, for example, ecological sustainability (the absence of ecological constraints on the capacity for continuance) will be influenced by social arrangements (Ekins 1993:280). These elements are so intertwined that events in one realm affect things in the other realms. One cannot isolate an element and ask whether or not it is by itself sustainable. Like an equation in which the terms are multiplied by one another, many different values can be assigned to the variables while still yielding the same answer. Sustainability does not require a specific configuration of these variables (culture, environment and society) — there are numerous and perhaps limitless possible ways in which they could interact sustainably. This is not to deny that there are perhaps some non-negotiable elements that would have to be present in any imaginable sustainability scenario such as air, water, food and maybe even specific animal species. Even while

?The environment includes natural resources, environmental conditions and the assimilative capacity of nature. Social elements are the political and economic aspects of society, including institutions, as well as the relations between people such as gender roles and class separation. Included in culture are values, belief systems and knowledge. The descriptions of these elements are not meant to be exhaustive but are given only as examples to demonstrate their breadth.

16

recognizing that there are some essential elements in the equation the possible permutations are many. Because sustainability is not one specific thing it is difficult to develop a "Geiger counter" of sorts to measure it. To get a better understanding of the complexity of the issue and an appreciation for the role that context plays in determining sustainability let us look at a fairly straightforward example, water consumption. For the sake of simplicity it is assumed that sustainable water consumption is a rate which can be maintained into the future without depleting the source. Initially it might be tempting to state a specific amount of water that can be consumed each year to maintain a sustainable situation. Or perhaps w e could determine a certain percentage of available water that can be used each year. Either way one might think that w e could set an absolute figure or a percent number that would be sustainable, no matter what the context. Examining the issue in further detail shows that this is not the case. A key piece of knowledge needed to make a decision about sustainable water use is the present quantity available. Obviously, sustainable annual water use would have to be considerably lower than the quantity currently available and thus our use is constrained by the abundance or scarcity of this natural resource. Another important element presenting a constraint is the natural rate of replenishment. A large present supply of water may allow for a good deal of initial consumption, but as the stock is depleted consumption will be limited by the annual replenishment rate which will vary according to the source of the water, the ecosystem type and other environmental factors. The amount of water that is needed per capita each year for survival will also be vastly different for different cultures. For example, in areas dependent on irrigated crops for subsistence agriculture, per capita water consumption will be higher than in

17

areas where rainfed agriculture provides the necessary sustenance. Constraints may also come from political and economic limitations on water use, again affecting the sustainable consumption amount. Other relevant factors include the size of the population, competing water needs such as for transport or fishing, water use by flora and fauna, and the rate of water loss through evaporation. These factors provide the context which determines how much water can be used each year sustainably. Without knowledge of these factors it would not be possible to define sustainable water use. Thus naming an amount to be used each year without placing that amount within its appropriate context is not the best way to proceed. In order to gather the crucial information needed to determine the sustainability of a practice or technology, the context itself must be established or defined. It is necessary to fix spatial and temporal boundaries around the context so that w e can discuss sustainability in the most meaningful way. Although there are some instances in which w e want something to be sustainable for the entire world it is more often the case that a policy, technology or activity will have its greatest impact on a particular area during a particular time span. Returning to the example of water use it can be demonstrated how influential the designation of space-time boundaries can be in determining whether or not a particular technology or policy is sustainable. For example if w e define as our geographic limit the metropolitan area of Atlanta, w e would find that the amount of water consumed each year surpasses the amount of water annually available within this same physical space. This is because much of the water consumed within the city limits of Atlanta comes from outside the boundary w e chose to define our context. W h e n w e expand the geographic scope to include North Georgia as a whole then water use is perhaps sustainable in this area. B y

18

expanding the area taken into consideration w e have included within its bounds a greater supply of water while not significantly increasing the population considered. So w e were able to move from a situation of unsustainable water use to sustainable water use not by changing anything about consumption, but simply by changing the scope of our analysis. Aside from the spatial limitations sustainability is also temporally bound. It is important to delineate the temporal horizon that will be used in our analysis. D o w e intend to use water at this rate for 10 years, 100 years, or 1,000 years? It is also important to understand that culture, society and the environment change over time such that a technology that was sustainable for a specific area in 1950 is not necessarily sustainable in 1994. The idea that sustainability is contextual is very important to the discussion of sustainable technology because, when we talk about measuring sustainability, the things that w e are most likely to be analyzing are technologies. Although many of the threats to sustainability that confront us today are the result of unsustainable technologies the solution is hot to abandon the technological approach entirely. Technology in general is neither inherendy inclined toward sustainability nor away from sustainability. While within the latter part of this century technology has been blamed for many of our problems, many people still see technology as the light at the end of the tunnel that will save us from any possible problems w e encounter. Technological thinking places an emphasis on "factual and technical information" ignoring difficult-to-quantify elements of our environmental crisis. Technological determinism is the belief that most, if not all, environmental problems have technical solutions which results in a persistent attempt to conceptualize such problems in solely technical terms and to search for purely biophysical 'causes.' The net effect is a serious underdevelopment of the means for conceptualizing and dealing with the social aspects of environmental problems (Miller 1985:184).

19

Some advocates of sustainable technology appear to be saying that technology alone will bring about sustainability, assuming that technology can be changed by itself while leaving the rest of the social, cultural and natural environment unaltered. Sociotechnical systems, like m a n - M A C H I N E systems, tend to really be socio-TECHNICAL systems. Decision-makers typically look for a simple technological fix to complex problems. For example, urban transportation problems are usually thought to involve more busses, freeways, and so forth instead of changes in school zones, tax laws, blight, etc., as incentives to encourage moves back to the cities (De Greene 1973:8). This ignores the important interactions that occur in the world between technology and everything else. Advanced technological societies are pressed with critical problems, because, as w e have seen, a technological subsystem once enmeshed within the political, economic, and behavioral framework of a society is difficult to reverse or eradicate. Thus, even though engineering solutions to social and environmental problems may be possible, implementation of these solutions in terms of economic readjustment, political jurisdiction, and restructure of social behavior may be impossible (De Greene 1973:126). W e cannot assume that technology alone will bring us to sustainability — it must be developed in conjunction with culture and society. The conception of technology in western culture has been detrimental to the search for sustainable technologies. Within the predominant western technological paradigm technology is often idolized as an entity unto itself which is thought to be untainted by the motivations of the humans from which it arises. Perhaps one of the greatest wrongs in the misguided lexicon of international development is the expression 'transfer of technology.' It implies that technology is something neutral, something that exists outside of society. It suggests that technology can be handed across a desk, picked out of a pattern catalogue (as in 'how to make a car'), or shipped by jumbo jet from the North to the South along with some 'technical assistance' to get it going (Smillie 1991:65). It is naive to believe that technologies can be neutral. "Perhaps the most common misconception of technology is that it is socially 'neutral,' that it is purely machinery.

20

But western technology in the Third World is a Trojan Horse of western economic and social values and beliefs" (McCully 1991:249). Technology is embedded in a social, cultural and environmental context, and therefore not neutral (Willoughby 1990:214). Dovers and Handmer assert that technology is actually a physical manifestation of culture (1993:217). While it is not readily apparent that technology is necessarily only physical in essence and solely a manifestation of culture, it is difficult to dispute that it is at least an element of culture. Related to the idea that technologies can be neutral is the idea that the science that supports it is both neutral and absolute. Dahlberg suggests that science is not wholly universal and absolute as may be believed. It is affected by the culture of the peoples that ascribe to it. "[T]here are increasingly large cultural biases (both Western and non-Western) as one moves from a rather abstract physical field like chemistry to a social area like economics and then on to a field like agriculture, where specific environments and cultures interface" (Dahlberg 1979:4). Technologies, which tend not to be abstract but rather real, are greatly impacted by such cultural biases. The sustainability that is desired in a technology resides in its relations to the rest of the world and does not refer to the technology in isolation. A sustainable technology is one that enhances or at least does not interfere with the sustainability of the community and unsustainable technologies are those which move a community away from sustainability. In other words a sustainable technology is one that promotes "the indefinite survival of the human species (with a quality of life beyond mere biological survival) through the maintenance of basic life support systems (air, water, land, biota) and the existence of infrastructure and institutions which distribute and protect the components of these systems" (Liverman et al. 1988:133).

21

It is m y contention that in order to be sustainable a technology must also be appropriate, though it may be possible for a technology to be appropriate without being sustainable. Therefore appropriateness is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for sustainability; in fact. Willoughby defines appropriate technology as "a technology tailored to fit the psychosocial and biophysical context prevailing in a particular location and period" (Willoughby 1990:15). This is the definition which is employed here. The term 'appropriate technology' then should not be read to refer to specific elements of a technology such as low energy use or low cost, as some appropriate technology authors, such as Schumacher, define it. 8 The present term should also be dissociated with the idea of intermediate technology since that implies a linear development of technologies and that Third World countries need and can handle only technologies which are not as advanced as those in the First World. There is no reason to stipulate that the technologies appropriate for the Third World must be less "sophisticated" or even less "advanced." "The idea that capital-intensive technology is appropriate for the 'developed' countries and intermediate technology for the developing countries must finally be recognized as false, and all technologies must be selected on the basis of whether they are truly appropriate for the particular situation for which they are intended" (McRobie quoted in Willoughby 1990:209). The appropriate technology is simply the one that is best suited for the relevant local conditions.

^Schumacher is one of the most well-known appropriate, or intermediate, technology advocates. In his 1975 book Small is Beautiful he suggests that inexpensive, simple and labor-intensive technologies are the most appropriate, calling for a shift from mass production to production by the masses. For the purposes of m y argument I find it counter-productive to attach such specific stipulations to the term and prefer to use the broad interpretation; an appropriate technology is simply a technology that is appropriate for a given time and place, regardless of whether or not it is labor-intensive etc.

22

Qualifying the word 'technology' with the adjective 'appropriate' implies that technology cannot be properly assessed or evaluated without reference to something other than itself. To be appropriate, technology must be appropriate to something or appropriate for some purpose. The notion of Appropriate Technology stresses that technology does not exist in a material and social vacuum (Willoughby 1990:270). In order for a technology to be appropriate it must be tailored to more than the physical elements in the area in which it is to be introduced; it must be tailored to the entire context. [W]here development projects are carried out in inhabited areas, physical, biological and cultural factors are intimately intertwined and cannot be separated one from the other. W h e n man is present, cultural feedback loops are as much part of the system in regulating its homeostasis as biophysical ones. The slash-and-burn agriculture system, for example, although seemingly wasteful and detrimental to the environment, has been able to maintain itself for a very long time due to the interplay of cultural and biophysical factors. If not perturbed by external forces, such as those which led to uncontrolled population growth, it should be able to maintain itself indefinitely (Soemarwoto 1977:39). While slash-and-burn agriculture may be an unsustainable practice in most parts of the world, there are some technological niches in which it is perfectly sustainable. It is sustainable in some areas because it fits with the social and cultural practices of the people as well as with the environment. The practice became unsustainable when it was transferred to another area or when the context itself changed. Another example of the contextuality of appropriateness of technology is the case of instant baby formula. Having worked well in the West where it was developed, this technology was promoted heavily in the South. Unfortunately this technology transfer was ill thought out and had some quite negative impacts. Where instant baby formula was used in the South the health of the babies declined. This occurred because many mothers over-dilute the formula in order to save money and typically the water that they use is contaminated, exposing the children to life threatening illnesses. The introduction of instant baby formula also resulted in an increased birthrate because it is

23

common practice in many countries for w o m e n to avoid having a second baby while still nursing a child since pregnancy interferes with their ability to lactate. These problems arose because an exogenously developed technology was introduced without evaluating the way cultural norms and economic realities would interact with it. By denying the social implications of technology many well meaning technological innovations do not achieve their desired goal and can have unexpected results. This happened with the introduction of methane gas digesters to villages in India. The digester was thought to be a grand coup for these villages since it would convert dung into electricity. Converting a locally available waste product into a commodity in short supply seemed innocuous enough. Unfortunately this technology was not neutral as was assumed and the result was unanticipated. "Only the wealthy villagers could afford to run the digesters, and dung, which had previously been availablefree,gained a cash value which lessened its availability to the landless villagers w h o depend on it for fuel" (McCully 1991:249). This technology then was not only one-sided in its benefits but it also was injurious to the poorest of the poor. A technology that was conceived of as a benefit to everyone was revealed to have a bias toward the wealthier citizens. By ignoring the current uses of dung and the social structure in the village, the gains of the wealthy were obtained at the expense of the poor. Langdon Winner provides another good example of the ways that technology is linked to society in one of his chapters entitled "Do artifacts have politics?" H e tells the story of a mechanical tomato harvester developed in the United States. This technological innovation achieved its goal of reducing the cost to tomato farmers of having workers handpick the harvest, while also causing many other changes in the tomato industry. The tomatoes themselves were "redesigned" to a firmer but less tasty

24

variety to withstand the rough treatment of the machines. The introduction of this new technology also had a major impact on the local social dynamics. Because the machines were expensive they were only affordable for large, concentrated farms, the result was that in less than 13 years the number of tomato farmers in California decreased from 4,000 to only 600 farmers. And perhaps less surprisingly, the mechanization of harvesting pushed many laborers out of jobs, which translated into large job losses in the tomato industry (Winner 1986:26). Technology is not neutral and its effects can be felt throughout the social and cultural sphere as this example illustrates. Part of the reason that technology is not neutral is that it is developed in the midst of a particular environment, as opposed to in a void. [T]echnological development does not take place in a social vacuum but is greatly influenced by economic variables such as prices and market structures, and also by all manner of political and institutional factors such as political culture, employer-employee relations, (environmental) legislation, and the role of social organizations and the general public itself (Cramer and Zegveld 1991:453). Richard Norgaard postulates that organization, knowledge, values, the ecosystem and technology coevolve such that "each can only be understood in the context of the others" (1992:80). H e describes the process: People survive as members of groups. Group success depends on culture: the system of values, beliefs, artifacts, artforms and structures which sustain social organization and rationalize action. Cultural traits [including technology] which fit the ecosystem survive and multiply; less fit ones eventually disappear. And thus they are selected much like genetic traits. At the same time, cultural traits influence how people interact with their ecosystem and apply selective pressure on species. Not only have people and their environment coevolved but also social systems and environmental systems have coevolved (Norgaard 1992:79). This idea is not unique to Norgaard and has been expressed by other thinkers as well. Culture ... persists only where it has managed to meet at least the biological needs of its individuals, in other words, where it Tits' the resource base (be it local and accessed directly, or remote and accessed

25

through trade). Thus the environment shapes the culture as the culture shapes the environment. Together they comprise a functioning, coevolving, system and it is that system ... that must form the bases of sustainable development planning. For that reason I propose the term 'socio-ecosystem' to describe the target of impact assessment studies (Meredith 1992:127) This coevolution occurs within geographic boundaries that separate groups of people from one another. The world can be divided into subsystems which have coevolved somewhat independendy, though these subsystems do interact creating a global level of coevolution as well. "Through this process [of coevolution], each patch took on unique characteristics particular to the random biological and cultural mutations of the patch and the introductions from other patches which proved fit. What can be known about coevolved systems is particular rather than universal" (Norgaard 80). Thus there are particular characteristics which make each patch different more so than there are common characteristics which make them similar. Once bounded in both space and time w e find that there are distinct differences between various patches. These differences can be attributed to culture, the ecosystem, society, politics, economics, knowledge, technology, physical characteristics, etc. This means that while a technology is sustainable in one space-time parcel it maybe be unsustainable in another one. A high per capita energy use may be sustainable in a context which has a large amount of energy, a low population concentration and a vast waste assimilative capacity — change any one of these attributes and the situation could become unsustainable. As a result of coevolution these spatial patches have significant variation affecting the technologies which arise and which ones are suitable for introduction from elsewhere. In other words what we end up with are differing "technological niches," to switch over to the terminology of Kelvin Willoughby.

26

The particular circumstances which constitute a technological niche may be referred to as the psychosocial and biophysical context of the technology in question. Psychosocial includes the ethical goals, political framework, economic structures, social institutions, philosophical perspectives, ideological commitments, aesthetic sensibilities, personal aspirations or psychic needs of people. Biophysical includes the physical-cum-biological needs of people and other species, geographical parameters, the availability of physical resource endowments, thermodynamic principles, environmental limits, physical constraints and overall ecological profile of a region. The term 'technological niche' may be used to denote a psychosocial and biophysical context which prevails at a particular location and time (Willoughby 1990:271).^ Because psychosocial and biophysical elements change over time for a given place, technologies can be appropriate only for a specifiedtimeand place; their appropriateness is not static and thus w e should not expect to find a perpetually or universally appropriate technology (Willoughby 1990:272). Technological development "is a learning process in which adaptations are constantly being made in order to adjust a given technology to a specific social environment. Consequently, technology cannot be freely transferred from one situation to another, but is location-bound" (Cramer and Zegveld 1991:452). Transferring a technology from the niche in which it was developed into an alien niche is not always successful and is often problematic. Norgaard explains that so long as cultures use technologies which evolve within their context we hover about the equilibrium of sustainability, any move away from it by a change in one of the elements results in shifts in the other elements to accommodate this change, hence the use of the term "coevolve." One cause of much unsustainability is the transferring of exogenously developed technologies into foreign contexts, in particular the spread of western technology around the globe.

^Psychosocial and biophysical represent essentially the same elements as are intended by m y terms social, cultural and environmental.

27

Value systems have been collapsing. Knowledge has been reduced to western understanding. Social organization and technologies have become increasingly the same around the world. The cultural implosion and environmental transformation have been closely interconnected. The switch to hydrocarbons allowed cultures to stop coevolving with their unique environments and adapt the values, knowledge, technologies and organization of the west (Norgaard 1992:82). While it may be debatable that all unsustainability can be blamed on the transfer of hydrocarbon technology, this does not threaten his more general conclusion that technologies evolved in one area can disturb the balance of factors in another area. The implication is not that technologies cannot be shared between differing technological niches, but a recognition that since technologies develop immersed in a context they are not transferable without careful attention to space-time peculiarities. The introduction of a new technology should be thought of as a dynamic evolutionary process, if it is developed outside of the location of its application and is not a perfect fit its introduction will result in changes to the surrounding context (Cramer and Zegveld 1991:453). "[T]echnology cannot, in fact, viably be transferred. Technology from 'outside' can only be used as a stimulant to local 'technology development,' and unless the imported technology is incorporated into the local culture, it can never be locally viable. Hence, the 'transfer' will not really have taken place" (Meredith 1992:128). Technological introductions have the best chance of success when they are tailored to local conditions instead of blindly exported from one context to another. In order to measure or evaluate the sustainability of a technology it is essential to examine it within the context in which it will exist. Sustainability adheres in the relations between a technology and its environment, and not in the technology itself. To determine the sustainability of a technology it is necessary to know as much as possible about the contextual variables and in order to gathering this information the context itself must be defined. Detennining the appropriate scope for analyzing a

28

technology is both difficult and tremendously important. The scope of analysis that is used can affect whether or not a particular technology is sustainable. Remember the effect that scope had in the water consumption example; when Atlanta alone was the context water consumption was determined to be unsustainable, but it was considered potentially sustainable when the context was enlarged to all of North Georgia. As such defining the scale of the context can be a dangerous tool, manipulated in order to sway the outcome. Care should be taken to minimize the impact that purely political motivations have on determining the scale. In other words the scale that is used should not be chosen solely because it serves the purposes of a particular interest group but rather because it is appears to be the appropriate scale. The appropriate scale for evaluating sustainability will be different for different types of technologies. The relevant context for some technologies will be the level of the city (urban transportation) whereas other technologies may only make sense at the national level (such as defense related technologies). There are no explicit rules for determining the size of the context, only general guidelines. As established earlier, technologies help solve specific problems or achieve particular goals. To be effective a technology must be scaled closely to the problem or goal it is addressing. Also, a technology will interact with culture, society and the natural environment with different levels of intensity at different scales. Evaluations should focus on the scale where these interactions are the strongest. 10 The next chapter will give more substance to this argument by discussing the appropriate scale for evaluating agricultural technologies.

10ln no way should this be taken to imply that there are readily discernable scales. The type of scales that a technology can be broken down into differs by problem, but is always anthropocentric (Allen and Starr 1982:11).

29

C H A P T E R III

AGRICULTURE A N D TECHNOLOGY

In the previous chapter it was established that in order to evaluate the sustainability of a technology one must look at that technology in its proper context, the place or situation in which it will be used. In this chapter, the importance of context will be examined in several examples of agricultural technology. Agriculture is a collection of many different technologies that humans have developed to achieve the goal of growing food. These technologies include improved variety seeds, methods for irrigating crops, soil erosion control, pest control, cropping systems, machines and tools for planting and harvesting, and soil fertility management, among other things.

The Essence of Agri-Culture The technological niche in which these technologies fit develops through the coevolutionary process that was described in the previous chapter. Agriculture is an activity that unites people with land; it necessarily involves a relationship between the two. This relationship is evidenced in the etymology of the word.

ager colere colere colere.

Agriculture is made up of two words; (from the Greek) meaning field or land, and (from the Latin) meaning to cultivate. But is a very rich word, having embedded in it the notion of divinelymandated, active care. Our words 'culture' and 'cult' are both derived from Accordingly, the word agriculture suggests the act of cultivating plants and animals for food within the context of a caring community committed to the sacred obligation of caring for the land (Kirschenmann 1993:1).

30

done to working with caring for

Thus agriculture is not something that is involves

the land but rather is an activity that

and

the land. "[A]griculture mediates bet

natural and man-made systems and is strongly influenced by local cultural beliefs and views of man's relationship to nature. These beliefs, which become embodied in the man-made environment (institutions and practices), act in turn upon the natural environment" (Dahlberg 1979:18). Farming is an activity that is embedded in and inseparable from the culture of the farmers. "[F]arms do not exist in social isolation but are integral components of communities, whose institutions, customs and systems of rights and obligations determine much of what farmers can and cannot do" (Conway and Barbier 1988:665). The relationships that are involved in agriculture extend beyond the individual farmer and the land worked, to include the surrounding community and environment. As a group of people adapt to a particular physical setting, their culture, system of farming and technologies develop along side one another. "Agricultural systems are the result of the convolution of ecological and social processes because agriculture requires converting natural resources, including plants and animals, into useful products through the application of human knowledge and material resources" (Altieri 1991:125). The environment becomes a part of the culture, influencing the behavior and belief systems of the people. "The values of plants and animals is written in the story of a local culture. Every indigenous culture that survives for generations has, in its collective wisdom, found a niche. Actions formed in such contexts give shape to local values" (Norton 1992:10). In addition to affecting the culture, the physical environment also affects social aspects of the community. The environment can serve as a constraint limiting the possible farming systems that a people can productively employ.

31

[Historically, soil types and agrarian technological changes played a major, often decisive, role in determining whether the land would be worked cooperatively or individualistically-whether in a conciliatory manner or an exploitative one-and this, in turn, profoundly affected the prevailing system of social relations. The highly centralized empires of the ancient world were clearly fostered by the irrigation works required for arid regions of the Near East; the cooperative medieval village, by the open-field strip system and the moldboard plow (Bookchin 1976:7). It should not be implied that the influence is unidirectional; the culture of a people and their community structure can have a major impact on their agricultural systems. Cultural differences are not incidental to agricultural development, for they influence the way plants are selected, planted, cultivated, and harvested, as well as patterns of land distribution, labor, income, and consumption. To cultural variety must be added a social history that, in spite of the persistence of certain themes of struggle over land tenancy and labor relations, is as different from region to region and even village to village as rainfall patterns or the likely times of frost in mountain valleys (Wright 1984:142). Cultural beliefs can therefore affect the attitude of a group of people toward their land and their consequent work patterns. For example in the Akan culture of Ghana it is felt

Earth'sfruitfulnessprovides sustenance for people; in appreciation, people set aside Thursday as a day of rest in honor of the Earth—a day on which no farming is allowed. The land, which is only a part of Earth, is owned by the ancestors who maintain a continuing interest in it. In principle, therefore, the land and its waters and minerals are not subject to individual ownership (Dyasi 1985:98). Because of the biophysical and sociocultural differences that occur across the landscape and through time there is a good deal of variation found among agricultural technologies. The relationship among these factors is so complex that one factor cannot be said to be the direct cause of another; their evolution is an on-going process in which influence is exerted in all directions.

32

Sense o f Place By living in close relationship with the land and environment many farmers and local residents develop an in-depth knowledge of their surroundings and a concern for the well-being of these surroundings; in other words, a sense of place. I do not think I knew what "sense of place" meant - it did not strike m e as a meaningful concept — until I was taken out of m y place. It was only from outside m y place, far away from it and in the middle of another people's place, that I truly came to appreciate the feelings of attachment that one can develop for a particular physical and cultural space. Living with the people of Lubembo, Zaire for five months in 1991 as a Peace Corps Volunteer, I learned what it meant to be in tune with a place, a physical and spiritual place. The people in this village have a wealth o f knowledge regarding their surrounding environment. Every different plant in the forest has a special function; whereas I saw only masses of greenery in the forest, m y friends saw mats, string, cups, wrapping materials, food, medicine and much much more. They know the location of the many paths that link them to neighboring villages, springs, fish ponds, local markets and their fields as well as where to find the caterpillars in M a y and the mushrooms in September. Along with this intimate knowledge was a respect and concern for the health of their environment that was evidenced in the social mores governing their interactions with nature. Hannon argues that sense of place typically develops from living in one area for a long time. "As the sense of place grows, the common idea of propertyrightsand ownership, blurs. In an intellectual sense, it all becomes yours. You are offended when some one neglects their home, their landscape, because it is your home and your landscape as well" (Hannon 1992:2). One develops an attachment for a place and consequently cares about its condition. The people in the local community that have

33

developed a sense of place therefore are more sensitive to their environment and maintaining the health of their environment. Agriculturalists and pastoralists ... have a detailed knowledge of the requirements of their domesticated plants and animals, and this knowledge is used to help select field locations and grazing areas. The Pokot of East Africa choose garden areas at different elevations according to the different crop requirements for temperature and rainfall, with the result that a distinct altitudinal zonation of crops and gardens develops. Bananas, which demand the most water are planted at the highest elevations, whereas more drought-resistant crops like sorghum may be planted at lower altitudes ... both the accumulation of past knowledge and the sharing of present experience contribute to the selection of agricultural plots and grazing locations (Jochim 1981:139). The knowledge that local peoples have about their environments allows them to make the best use of it over the long term. Long-standing cultures have developed a symbiotic relationship with their natural environment and consequently have a vested interest in sustaining their community. They are more likely to be concerned with the sustainability of their activities than are people that lack this sense of place.

"[Successful cultures (ones that

have survived for many generations in a particular place) will have evolved some form of control mechanisms to limit the extent to which individual decisions and collective, short-term decisions may alter the ecological context" (Norton and Hannon draft:5). Aldo Leopold thought that to be successful cultures must maintain their environment at least to the extent that they can survive; this is often done by limiting acceptable individual behavior (Norton

1992:9).

Even without the establishment of explicit restrictions, the coevolutionary nature of the web of relations is such that any significant change in one aspect would either cause an adaptive change in the other elements or would result in the ultimate ruin of the system. This is not to say that local practices are always sustainable, in fact there are the several famous civilizations that are known for their environmental degradation,

34

such the original Easter Island culture and the Mayan Civilization. It should be noted that both of these civilizations are believed to have died out because of the extensive damage they caused to their environment, adding validation to the theory that cultures must have sustainable practices in order to survive.

Agricultural Technologies So far the discussion has centered around locally designed agricultural technologies, and why they tend to work well and be sustainable in their particular situations. This ignores the vast amount of technology that is developed in one context but then applied or used in many different places. In fact agricultural development quite often entails the "transfer" of technology from a donor country to a lessor developed country because, despite the vast knowledge that indigenous people have regarding their environment, they sometimes lack the scientific knowledge that could provide them with more productive ways of working with their environment. In determining the sustainability of an agricultural development project it is necessary to look specifically at the technologies that will be used. A s was discussed in the preceding chapter, technologies are so interrelated to other aspects of a place that they cannot be appropriate in all places for all times; their appropriateness and consequent sustainability is contingent on the space-time particulars. Some of these particulars, which are especially significant for agricultural technologies, are presented in Table 3-1. The way that agricultural technologies are evaluated before they are chosen for a development project is greatly influenced by the project design methodology. Although there are many different methods for designing development projects, it is possible to separate these methods into two broad categories: the top-down and the bottom-up

35

approach. These two approaches will be examined giving particular attention to the scope and level of analysis they use in evaluating projects.

Top-Down Approach One approach to agricultural development is to have educated specialists create a program with plans for widespread implementation. These types of programs are typically instituted by national governments, or by outside development agencies, that hope to have an impact on agriculture in the country as a whole. Some programs have an even larger scale than this, such as the Green Revolution, which was implemented across the globe (this will be one of the case studies examined in detail later). The impetus for these programs often comes from the demands of the world market as interpreted by the agencies that design them. Although these projects are designed by national or international agencies, implementation occurs at the local level in specific locations. Local farmers and villages undertake projects that were designed far away from their context without having been involved in the selection and development of the project. In opposition to... locally determined values, centralized values that are imposed from the center are usually based on authority. Here, values are determined by abstract principles more than local appropriateness and they flow down a political and geographical hierarchy. W h e n local values conflict with values of the center, the former must give way (Norton and Hannon draft: 16). This top-down method gives much power to institutions and individuals that are not directly involved in the local agriculture and that usually have little or no understanding of the area where the project will eventually be implemented. "The remote official in his air-conditioned office at Dar es Salaam, looking despondently at an 'in' tray full of proposals for places whose names and localities he has hardly heard of, is not perhaps

36

Table 3-1 Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Agricultural Technologies

CATEGORY

FACTORS

Physical/ecological

Soils Climate Topography Flora and fauna

Infrastructure/geographical

Water control and access Availability and Access to: credit supplies/inputs health care education markets

Land use

Crops/cropping systems/livestock

Economic

Land tenure Labor Capital Consumption Price of input/output

Education

Education/literacy Agricultural training

Cultural/psychological

Risk aversion Traditions Aspirations and expectations

Socio-cultural and political

Ethnicity Kinship relations Household structure Indigenous technical knowledge Norms and values Religion/belief systems Tastes and preferences/aesthetics Political institutions and government

Adapted from Doorman, p. 237.

37

the most effective instigator of local dynamism and self-confidence" (Ward 1979:209). This quotation typifies the feeling that many advocates of local involvement hold; the people designing projects are often too far removed from the effects of the projects to be capable of doing a good job. Because conditions such as culture and environment vary so much among different locations, projects that are imposed from the top down are usually not very successful. Natural factors such as soil type and quality and weather conditions have a great impact on agricultural productivity and variability, manipulation by humans can have only a limited impact given the environmental constraints within which they must work. Natural conditions, political factors, income, level of development, education and infrastructure vary greatly for each locality considered for development, thus it is important to look at each locality separately to determine the appropriateness of a particular technology (Bishay 1973). These distinctions among localities are passed over when projects are designed exogenously, compromising the prospects of sustainability. A perfect example of this is provided by the Chadian Livestock Project, started in 1973 by several international development agencies, including U S Agency of International Development and U N Development Programme. The project was planned almost entirely by a U N employee who never talked with the local herders that were to be "developed." The goal of the project was to have the herders shift from herding several species of animals to specializing in only cattle. The project developers felt that the local herders' decision to tend such diverse herds was irrational; once they were educated in the western style of cattle ranching, the local people would see the error of their ways and change.

38

Adoption of the western technology would have been a disaster because the plan ignored crucial place-specific knowledge. Although the indigenous method may have appeared unproductive, it is a very rational system given the local conditions of which the herders are well aware. Because the rainfall in this area is quite varied from year to year,-the diversity of the herd helps insure at least a minimum of food, no matter what the rainfall is in a particular year. If the project planners had talked with the target group, they would have learned why it is necessary for the herders to raise animals with varying water and food needs, and would not have suggested the risky proposition of depending solely on cattle (Reyna 1991). "[Successful implementation requires a significant reorientation of existing philosophies and practices away from a top-down, technology-driven approach to one that is more sensitive to farmers' goals and needs" (Conway and Barbier 1988:668). Instead of taking a technology that works in one area and blindly applying it to another location (such as cattle ranching that works in the West but not in Chad), perhaps more attention should be given to the needs and conditions in the target area before deciding what technology would be sustainable.

Bottom-Up Approach A bottom-up approach is one in which projects are defined and designed primarily at the local level, rather than at the national or even international level. Technologies involved in bottom up development projects are not necessarily locally evolved technologies, more often than not they are exogenously evolved technologies that have been demanded by local farmers and then adapted to their circumstances. The drive comes from the local farmers, leading to more successful projects with a greater likelihood of sustainability, for several reasons.

39

A s pointed out above, farming cannot be guided by absolute rules; "one has to look to the ecology, history and culture of the place to determine the precise practices that one might fruitfully introduce into this place" (Kirschenmann 1993:3). The local farmers are a better source of this information than are agronomists or other experts trained to deal with dissimilar or generic landscapes. Local farmers have the benefit of their cultural knowledge of the place, including the accumulated knowledge of their ancestors, something outsiders lack (Kirschenmann 1993). "Although the technical knowledge of local people may not be highly sophisticated, it is commonly quite appropriate, based on long experience and intimate practical knowledge of their

environment" (Esman andUphoff 1984:26). At first glance, these ideals of local direction and reliance on local knowledge and resources seem to be a poor foundation for technical improvements. H o w can peasant agriculture improve if improvements must be based on the peasants' knowledge? In fact, projects that build from local knowledge are the only way technical change can come about. Local farmers know enough to recognize what is better, to seize on it, and to use it. The importance of a 'bottom-up' approach to environmental development... cannot be overstressed (Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b 1991:9). Because native people have more knowledge of their place, they will have a greater appreciation of the intricacies of the local environment and a better understanding of how well a technology would fit within their context; this is how local involvement increases the likelihood of environmentally sound agricultural projects. Through sense of place local residents have more attachment to their environment than do the central planning agents, and consequently will be more interested in caring for it. This interest also stems from their dependence on the local environment for subsistence. "While individuals and communities must struggle to exist with the plants and animals, and the processes that support their welfare are known intimately, those processes and species have less value to centralized authority" (Norton and Hannon

40

draft: 14). Dependence on the environment breeds concern for it; development workers living in the capital have little to lose if a project results in ecological degradation. In the past farmers that choose not to adopt new technologies were called "irrational." It has since been recognized that many farmers refuse to take on technologies that could endanger the survival of their families. This was the case with herders in Chad who chose not to specialize in cattle because they knew that a year with little rainfall could devastate a single-species herd. Locally designed projects are typically more successful because of the interest and commitment of the residents. W h e n local residents are not involved in the planning of a project they feel no ownership over the project and thus do not put their support behind the project. "Projects aimed at environmental control and improvement must have the support of local people if they are to be firmly established and maintained" (Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b 1991:111). Changes in lifestyle cannot be forced from above. Sustainable development is most likely when initiated from the local level. The "social energy" should flow from the local level upward. Through local participation, local technologies are developed based on local knowledge and resources, and used as an instrument of liberation and social organization. This allows peasants to meet their basic needs without becoming dependent on external assistance. The objective is to build upon the best of the local initiatives to ensure and support selfreliance and local adaptation (Altieri 1991:132). At a World Conservation Union workshop, after examining various sustainable development projects, it was agreed that local participation is an important element for making projects successful. "To implement and sustain local strategies, practitioners must live in the area, understand the culture and language, gain the trust of local people, and respond to the basic needs of the community" (Environmental Strategy 1993:8). W h e n the initiative for change and the strategy for development originate at the village level many factors work toward its success. The villagers, having a sense of

41

place, are more knowledgeable about their local environment and have a greater stake in protecting that environment than do national governments or development agencies. Projects imposed on citizens from above, are not as well regarded as are projects created from within the community, making them more difficult to implement.

Choosing a Scale for Evaluation W h e n evaluating the sustainability of a technology it is best to evaluate it within its niche. For agricultural technologies this niche is at the level of the community. 11 It is within the community that farming evolves, interacting strongly with the social, cultural and environmental aspects. For these reasons bottom-up development is preferable for agricultural development. "[T]he diversity of agroecological systems and socioeconomic relationships essential to the livelihoods of many rural groups suggests that sustainable agricultural development requires less of a top-down and more of a bottom-up policy implementation" (Barbier 1989:39). Identifying the community level as the appropriate scale for evaluating agricultural technologies does not mean that no other scales impact agriculture. In fact the agricultural hierarchy starts at the level of the single plant moving up in scale to the field, community/village, region, nation andfinallythe largest scale is the world (Conway and Barbier 1988:657). Occurrences at levels other than the community do have important impacts on agriculture. Soil conditions within fields impact the total crop yield for a community and, from the other direction, world markets influence the crops that farmers decide to grow. 1 iThe term "community" as used here, should not be taken to refer to a particular physical scale. Physically a community may be a part of a town, a whole village, or even a group of several villages. The important thing is that a community is a relatively small group of people in one area that have a common interest sufficient to create an interactive social unit, even though there may be much diversity within that group of people.

42

By focusing on the community level, the impacts from other scales are not necessarily ignored. The exogenous variables with a strong impact on agriculture will be represented at the community level as well. For instance world markets, while not directly a part of the community, will affect the local price that is paid for a crop. It should also be recognized that while w e can speak of the community as a cohesive unit, it is made up of many diverse individuals. As such, community level variables should reflect the intra-community diversity, taking it into account when evaluating the sustainability of a technology. The importance of evaluating technologies at the community level will be demonstrated with the examination of four case studies. These case studies include two large-scale programs and two smaller-scaled projects, with each category having one example of a top-down approach and one example of a bottom-up approach. It will be seen that even with large scale programs it is possible to tailor a technology to the community context rather than either ignoring the context or trying to change the context to fit thetechnology.And also that even at the level of an individual project the context can be overlooked resulting in an unsustainable project; it is not necessarily the size of the project that matters but the way in which a technology is adapted to fit within the community where it will be used.

43

C H A P T E R IV

THE GREEN REVOLUTION

Project Overview The Green Revolution was a large scale agriculture development program intended to increase the world supply of food. It was developed out of a Rockefeller Foundation research project begun in Mexico in 1941. The Rockefeller researchers were trying to replicate the production increases that had been achieved in temperate farrning in the tropical zone (Dahlberg 1979:48). The program focused on increasing yield by use of 12

high yield varieties (HYVs) , fertilizers and irrigation of land. They started by experimenting with different wheat varieties in Mexico and were able to significantly 13

increase yields. Based on this experience the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation began working on an improved variety ofricefor Asian countries in the mid 1950s. The Green Revolution was not attempted in Africa until the mid 1960s. Not only were the researchers inspired by the increase in yield that had occurred in Western agriculture, but they were also driven by the fear of mass famine. There were dire predictions of corning famine, resulting from an increasing population dependent on uncertain and possibly diminishing crop yields. It was predicted that as early as 1975 food production would not be sufficient to feed the world's population (see Paddock and Paddock 1967). Concern was focused on highly populated countries such as India and l^Much of the credit for high yield varieties is given to Dr. Norman Borlaug w h o was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for the development of a H Y V of dwarf wheat (Critchfield 1992). l^By 1967 Mexico had tripled its output of wheat and doubled its corn production (Brown 1970:3).

44

Mexico, that were not self-sufficient in food production. The Green Revolution was not necessarily intended to be a permanent solution but was seen by some as a way to buy more time until a different farming method could be developed or the world's population growth rate could be reduced.

Design and Implementation The goal of the Green Revolution was to increase the global food supply by increasing national outputs of major crops. The drive for the program thus came from the global level, as opposed to a locally felt need, influencing the design and implementation of the program. Because the goal of the program was to have a global impact it was designed to be applicable around the world. The Foundation researchers went about trying to develop a package of improved seeds and various inputs that would be insensitive to local variations, so that it could be transferred around the world with no problem. What was missing though, was consideration of the social, cultural and economic factors that also influence agriculture and vary tremendously in different locations (Dahlberg 1979:66). By means of selective breeding they were able to develop new plant varieties which tended to produce higher yields. These new H Y V s were designed to be especially receptive to artificial inputs such as fertilizers. Taking in more nutrients to create more grain required some structural changes in the plants as well. Dwarf plants were favored over local varieties because not only are they better at taking in the nutrients, but their stalks are also stronger, allowing them to support heavier grains (Pearse 1980:9). Instead of truly being applicable to all environments, these H Y V s are dependent on the creation of an optimal environment. "[T]he high potential yield of which the new grains are capable can be achieved only if such practices as weeding, watering, fertilizing,

45

transplanting, and plant-spacing are all carried out in a specially stipulated manner, which is more demanding of accuracy and labour than customary husbandry" (Pearse 1980:11). Since the daily amount of sunlight varies from place to place, and this was one factor that they did not have the ability to alter, they bred seeds that were not sensitive to these variations. In other words it was possible to develop seeds for the whole world to use once they could assume a homogenous and controlled environment The program was thus designed with no

particular

location in mind; it was meant

to be a standard package that could be used in any location. Instead of fitting the program to its particular clients it was thought that the recipient area could be adapted to fit the new technology. The H Y V production package- was handled in a fairly typical technocratic manner, that is, once this new technology was developed, the major concern became how to transfer it to other parts of the world. All other aspects of agriculture- cropping, irrigation, and cultivation- were expected to change to meet the requirements of the new seeds. Finally, those social and economic relationships that inhibited the introduction of the new seeds were seen as impediments to be overcome (Dahlberg 1979:58). Not only were changes to the physical environment necessary but the social environment would also have to be adapted to the new technology. To increase yields Third World farmers would not only have to adopt the technology of the West but also the culture. Scientists can now build, with the genetical and other tools they possess, a high-yielding variety to fit almost any physical environment.... But the environment itself must, in return, be largely restructured to accommodate the new variety- to meet its specific cultural requirements and thereby to capture its high yield-potential, also to move and distribute the bumper crop. This means that biological engineering, to repeat a phrase used on earlier occasions, must be 1975:9).

matched by socio-economic eng

46

Project Outcome The Green Revolution was neither an unqualified success or failure. It achieved varying outcomes because of the differences that exist among the places where it was attempted. In some places such as Mexico it worked fairly well, whereas in other places such as Africa it has not been successful at all. Although in many cases it achieved its goal of increasing yields, there have also been many "second generation" effects, some of which are negative. Many countries were able to move from being importers of large quantities of grain toward self-sufficiency by bringing in record crops, in some cases doubling and even tripling their previous production (Brown 1970:4-5). The H Y V s in India resulted in a doubling of wheat yields in only 8 years, exceeding even the optimistic predictions (Sen 1975:6). "It has not solved the food problem of India and other developing countries, but it has brought the solid assurance that the problem can be solved. And it has given them the desperately needed breathing-space — in a period of spiraling population — to come to grips with the problem and to set their economic house in order" (Sen 1975:7). Despite widespread claims of success, it is not certain exactly how much the H Y V package has increased outputs. Early estimates tended to be unrealistically big, either because they compared the H Y V package to traditional varieties without extra inputs or because they neglected the fact that the H Y V s were usually planted on the best soils. After a number of years of experience, it appears that on average the H Y V s increasericeproduction some 2 5 % and wheat production some 5 0 % (Dahlberg 1979:68). A study of government statistics in Mexico found that the H Y V s and their accompanying inputs were only responsible for one-sixth to one-third of the production increase. The more significant factors contributing to this increase were thought to be the opening up of new, fertile lands, land redistribution, and fiscal incentives (Wright 1984:142).

47

It is also difficult to compare previous wheat andriceoutputs with those achieved after the introduction of H Y V s , because the Green Revolution package required a shift from mixed-cropping to mono-cropping. "Mixed cropping often produces more total, but less of any one crop compared with yields in sole stands" (Cleveland 1991:333). B y focusing on only one crop the Green Revolution can claim to have doubled or tripled yields of a particular crop, while the overall output for a farmer has probably gone down. It is argued that once all of the inputs are properly accounted for, the Green Revolution will be seen as inefficient. [JJf one takes into account the hidden costs of input subsidies and non­ renewable resources, and the costs of ecological damage (leading to lower yields after some time) and furthermore, measure yield against high fertilizer and water costs, then the Green Revolution techniques are highly inefficient. In contrast, the economic soundness of traditional and ecologically better varieties is striking (International Movement for Ecological Agriculture 1990:108). The Green Revolution has not met with even marginal success in Africa. "In Africa the inappropriateness of green revolution varieties in the past is evidenced by the fact that the great majority of the many varieties sent there by IARCs [International Agricultural Research Centers] and others have not been as productive as the local varieties, either as field crops or breeding stock" (Cleveland 1991:332). Although African farmers with poor quality lands are in need of increased yields, the Green Revolution has offered them little assistance. With the transition in focus in the 1970s, from the homogenous, wellendowed and controlled environments typical of the Green Revolution lands to meeting the needs of farmers in more marginal and heterogeneous environments, came a significant change in research and extension emphasis. Because of the greater diversity and complexity of farms in these resource-poor environments it became apparent that these farms had to be understood as whole systems and not simply as collections of individual agricultural commodities (Conway and Barbier 1988:663). The remaining areas that were in serious need of a Green Revolution-like transformation were unsuitable for that approach because of their poor quality. The H Y V s have stable

48

yields in areas with a controlled, homogenous environment but on non-irrigated lands which are exposed to more variability in rainfall patterns, local varieties are typically better adapted (Cleveland 1991:331). Unless it pulls those most atriskof famine into safety it is hard to categorize the Green Revolution as a success.

Sustainability Regardless of whether or not actual yields have been increased, the Green Revolution package is not a sustainable agricultural program. There are several environmental problems caused by the employment of irrigation and the use of fertilizers and

p e s t i c i d e s

t h a t

a c c o m p a n y

t h e p l a n t i n g

o f H Y V s ,

a s w e l l

a s t h e l o s s

o f

b i o l o g i c a l

diversity that it causes. Irrigation can, and often does, result in the overuse of water, depleting reserves at a rate higher than the natural replenishment rate, causing water tables to decline. In Punjab, India water use by green revolution crops is causing conflicts among farmers. In areas of Punjab where their irrigation is drawn from groundwater, the water table is estimated to be dropping by one half a meter per year. The large amount of water that is needed to grow H Y V s makes them less efficient than local varieties. "Although highyielding varieties of wheat may yield over 40 per cent more than traditional varieties, they need about threetimesas much water. In terms of water use, therefore, they are less than half as productive" (Shiva 1991:60). Irrigation can also cause the leaching of chemicals into the water table and salinization. "Beyond this, there are some indications that large dams and increases in irrigation (as well as the other land-use changes associated with the H Y V s ) may have an impact upon climate, rainfall, and monsoon patterns" (Dahlberg 1979:83).

49

The success of H Y V s is also highly dependent upon intensive use of fertilizers, raising many issues which threaten the sustainability of the program Fertilizer use is not a permanent solution to farrning in the long run because fertilizers are a petro-chemical product meaning that they are a non-renewable resources (Cleveland 1991:330). Heavy or even just uninformed use of fertilizers can result in environmental damage that degrades the natural resource base on which agriculture depends. The Green Revolution has also caused an increase in the amount of fertilizers that are sold to Third World countries by international agribusinesses. So even though these countries may be importing less food to feed their population it is at the cost of importing more chemicals, m a i n t a i n i n g

t h e d e p e n d e n c e

t h e y

w e r e

h o p i n g

t o e r a d i c a t e

( T h a k u r

1990:50).

The Green Revolution makes its biggest transgression against sustainability by significantly decreasing the ecological diversity in agriculture. T o be successful in increasing yields the Green Revolution requires the homogenization of the landscape, making naturally diverse environments more similar. The promotion of a limited number of H Y V s has resulted in many farmers abandoning the multitude of local varieties they used to plant; wheat that is grown in Mexico is the same as the wheat grown in India. Diversity has decreased not only at the global level, but also at the micro level of individual fields. Farmers that typically would engage in rnixed-cropping and would plant several seed varieties of one crop, have been encouraged to switch to monocropping of only one variety. A local farmer in Sri Lanka laments the introduction of "improved" variety seeds that have caused a decrease in the number of differentricevarieties grown in his country from well over 200 to less than 20. H e recounts that his father was more self-sufficient than he is because "he planted so many varieties; some always grew well whatever the problems we encountered in a particular year. Each one of these varieties was less

50

vulnerable to severe conditions than is the hybrid variety w e use today" (Tenakoon quoted in Goldsmith 1982:212). This is not an isolated event; "[i]n Turkey and Ethiopia thousands of local wheats have become extinct over the last several decades, and the phenomenon is widespread" (Todd 1976:265). This is a serious problem because diversity in agriculture is essential for sustainability. Replacement of many locally adapted varieties or landraces by a much smaller number of widely adapted green revolution varieties has led to increased production at the price of decreased diversity in crop genetics and field ecosystems. This results in increased instability, i.e. increased variation in yield from year to year, when subject to environmental fluctuations, e.g., in water supply or pest and pathogen attacks (Cleveland 1991:330). The H Y V s have to be replaced after only a few years because pests and pathogens evolve to attack them faster than they evolve when there is field diversity (Cleveland 1991). The introduction of the potato into Ireland is often cited as a lesson to be learned about genetic variability. "Production of food dramatically increased, and by 1835 a population explosion had taken place as a result of the land's increased carrying capacity. During the 1840s a new fungal plant disease appeared, destroying several potato crops, and onequarter of the Irish people died of starvation" (Todd 1976:266). The loss of plant diversity also has an impact on culture. The Sri Lankan farmer quoted above describes the many needs that differentricevarieties fulfilled in his community. "We grew Heenati for lactating mothers as it makes them produce more milk and also better milk with a high fat and sugar content

Kani murunga w e grew for the

men going out to work in the paddy fields. It gave them energy as it contained a lot of carbohydrates. It was also used for making milkricefor traditional ceremonies" (Tenakoon quoted in Goldsmith 1982:210). Their culture was impoverished by the replacement of their manyricevarieties by a smaller number of improved varieties.

51

The Green Revolution has hardly been a case of sustainable development since it has not provided development for the poorest of the poor. The program was much more beneficial to farmers who were already well off than it was to the poorest of farmers. Poor farmers did not have enough money to purchase the expensive inputs, they did not have irrigated fields and could not afford to accept the risk of failure as well as those with some savings (Dahlberg 1979; Thakur 1990). More often than not the Green Revolution was responsible for increasing the disparity between well-off and desperately poor farmers. Those with enough capital invested in the inputs necessary to grow the H Y V s increased their yields, squeezing the less fortunate farmers out of the market.

Conclusions The unsustainability of the Green Revolution was a result of the approach it took to agriculture and agricultural technologies. The Foundation researchers were looking to reproduce "modem industrial" farming in less developed countries. They took the technology that had been successful at increasing crop yields in temperate farrning and tried to apply it to tropical farrning. The mistake was in believing that technologies are neat little packages that can be applicable to the whole world and then applying these technologies to vastly different localities. The Green Revolution was developed out of context and then put into a context and expected to work. Agriculture requires a more contextual approach. [B]ecause farrning is done in a particular place, the value and application of expert, general advice, even benign ecological advice, is restricted and limited. Green Revolution agriculture tried to get around this dilemma by denying the importance of place, by bypassing place altogether... Generalized varieties of wheat are expected to grow equally well in Pakistan and Mexico. Agroecologists know better; they reject placeless farming and the troubles it brings. They know that the soil types, habitat types, landforms, and microclimates, all varying from place to place, are critical limiting factors (Ehrenfeld 1993:171).

52

One means of achieving this "placeless farming" was to develop varieties that could allegedly work in any environment because they were insensitive to local variations. But this also means that these varieties were not especially well suited for any environment They were bred such that they could not take advantage of any benefits that are particular to a place. The other tactic taken was to homogenize the landscape so that local variations were smoothed over. Both of these methods employed by the Green Revolution caused a decrease in diversity and thus represented a step away from sustainability. The decrease in diversity was a necessary result of the need to homogenize landscapes. This would not have occurred had the projects been tailored to the specific sites, working in the context of the local situation, accepting cultural multi-cropping systems and using locally tested or developed varieties. The Green Revolution researchers believed that technology was sufficient for controlling and managing the environment and ignored the other important influences on agriculture. W h e n those influences were acknowledged they were seen as being completely alterable. Aided by some 30 years' experience, we can see by looking back that the program launched in 1941 included a major ecological insight: improved varieties for semitropical areas would have to be developed from the disease-resistant seed stock of that climatic zone rather than from varieties developed in the temperate zone. Much of the genetic success of the program rests on this insight. Little consideration was given to the geographic and cultural relativity of other parts of the package; as it turns ' out, to be most productive the new varieties require most of the trappings of m o d e m industrial agriculture: irrigation, pesticides, fertilizers, large markets, extension services, credit, mechanization, and so on ... Since those involved were biological researchers, there was little systematic awareness on their part of the great differences in agricultural structure from one developing country to the next in terms of land ownership, farm size, access to irrigation, distribution of wealth, and so on. They therefore failed to realize that in addition to the seeds, the whole Western approach to agriculture, with all of its built-in assumptions and physical requirements, needed to be adapted to the local conditions. The failure to have this larger holistic (and contextually specific) view from the

53

beginning helps explain the controlling attempts to correct for the unanticipated, but predictable side effects of the green revolution (Dahlberg 1979:49). The program may have been more successful if the researchers dropped the assumption that all of the answers to improving agriculture lie within Western technology, and were able to look at the specific and contextual technology that already exists in traditional agricultural communities. [A]griculture the practice of farming, as its name states, is in large part passed like the land itself from generation to generation, from older to younger farmers the cultural transmission of agricultural knowledge is predicated on a continued and long-lasting association with particular pieces of land. Modern conventional agriculture, the Green Revolution, has ignored this association, substituting material inputs such as chemical fertilizers, farm machinery, pesticides and irrigation for older farrning practices such as crop rotation and communal labor systems and substituting the generalized information of agricultural extension agents, commercial magazines supported by agribusiness, and chemical manufacturer's instructions, for the particular, land-bound cultural information given from parent to child or neighbor to neighbor (Ehrenfeld 1993:168). y

The method employed by the Green Revolution was too generic and not flexible enough to work in different areas. It did not take account of local variations, environmental or cultural. "Goals of environmental sustainability and social equity are incompatible with.. .[the Green Revolution] approach to agricultural development. B y failing to understand indigenous African agriculture holistically, ecologically, and nonethnocentrically with a view to enhancing it, this approach destroys the diversity that begets long-term stability" (Cleveland 1991:334) and thus is unsustainable.

54

CHAPTER V

INTEGRATED PEST M A N A G E M E N T

Project Overview Agricultural productivity can be improved not only by increasing the amount of a crop that is grown in absolute terms but also by improving the efficient of farming by decreasing the amount that is lost to pests (insects, diseases and weeds). World-wide estimates of total agricultural production lost to pests are as high as 30 percent of annual production, indicating that there is much room for improving crop yields through pest control. The most widespread method for dealing with these pests has been the use of chemicals, the production of which has increased dramatically since the end of World W a r II. Even though pesticides are widely used, they have not solved the problem of pest-related losses. "[D]espite their sometimes dramatic short-term effects, heavy use of pesticides has not significantly reduced long-term pest problems and, in some cases, has even aggravated them" (Kiss and Meerman 1991:vii). Pesticides use is fraught with problems such as "depletion of beneficial insect populations, insecticide resistance, increased importance of secondary pest problems, crop residues, and environmental contamination" (American Insect Control Delegation 1977:142). Pests build up resistance to particular toxins rather quickly, and some even become "super-pests" which are difficult to kill with any pesticides. Some pesticides are general biocides that kill off plant and insect life indiscriminately, including those species which are natural predators of the target pest. With pesticide resistance and a decreased population of

55

predators, problematic pests are allowed to flourish. This results in farmers using larger amounts of pesticides while scientists frantically work at developing more highly toxic chemicals to outpace pest evolution. This not only elevates theriskof environmental problems but also makes pest control increasingly expensive. A recognition of the risks to human health and the environment, combined with the high cost of pesticides, led researchers in the developed world to search for a better way to deal with the pest problem (Kiss and Meerman 1991 :vii). "A basic need existed to revive an earlier era of research on agricultural pests that centered on the pests' biology and ecological, cultural, and biological ways of handling them, not to the abandonment, however, of insecticides, which when properly used remain our most reliable

immediate

solution to a problem" (Huffaker and Smith 1980:6). These

concepts are embodied in an approach called integrated pest management (IPM) which evolved out of several decades of work. The first real test of this method took place on cotton fields in Peru in 1956 (Sattaur 1988:48). The ideas behind IPM were discussed a great deal in the 1960s and by the 1970s it was being used by farmers around the globe (Perkins 1982:79).

Design and Implementation The goal of IPM is "to optimize pest control in the long-term economic, social and environmental spheres," to achieve the maximum yield possible, while not exacting too high a price through intensive chemical inputs (Huffaker and Smith 1980:7). Thus IPM is designed to work with the natural ecosystem by taking advantage of the ways in which nature keeps pests in check. Inherent to this general objective is recognition that most crop pests are tremendously adaptive, highly reproductive organisms, and that most of them in nature are not likely to be eradicated- moreover, that they do not cause catastrophic damage to their host plants in natural systems. Thus,

56

w e seek to maximize their great natural control forces: the weather, host plant resistance, and natural enemies. Containment of their populations rather than prevention or eradication is the logical strategy (Huffaker and Smith 1980:7). Entire communities of pests are not eliminated because this would be too disruptive of the natural balance between competitive and predatory species . To develop an IPM strategy a farmer must first identify the specific pest problem, distinguishing between harmful and beneficial species. Next the farmer must monitor the problem pest population in order to determine when the economic threshold has been surpassed and action must be taken. Part of controlling the pest population in an IPM strategy is maintaining a sufficient population of beneficial organisms that keep the pest population under control (Ridgley and Brush 1992:369). All of the information necessary to design and implement an effective IPM strategy is very site specific. Programs cannot be designed around particular pests or crops but must be designed for a particular agroecosystem, taking into account the multitude of interactions it contains (Panel for Collaborative Research 1992:6). In addition to the physical elements there are also social, cultural and economic elements which will influence a farmer's decisions and are taken into consideration when designing an IPM strategy. By taking local variations into account, IPM programs themselves exhibit a great deal of variation. "IPM is not one single program of specified action, but a dynamic approach to pest management that is ecologically sound and that empowers farmers to better manage their resources. I P M is highly site and crop specific; the varieties and relative importance of pests and the threats they pose vary with location and time" (Panel for Collaborative Research 1992:10). The specific components of IPM programs will vary. "For example, cultural practices involving early crop maturity, harvesting, destruction of cotton stalks may be an important and practical aid to boll weevil or pink bollworm control in Southern regions, but these

57

same practices would contribute much less in Northern cotton growing areas" (Council on Environmental Quality 1972:9). This example shows the attention that is given to cultural practices and demonstrates theflexibilitywhich is inherent in IPM. Although all IPM schemes are different, some of the elements they typically employ are "biological control, host resistance, cultural control, autocidal insect control (releasing sterile or genetically altered insects), and the use of chemicals, such as pheromones or insect growth regulators, that modify the behavior of insect pests" (Sattaur 1988:49).

Project Outcome

Integrated pest management has been implemented around the globe. It has succeeded in controlling pest populations with small amounts of chemical pesticides in places as diverse as China, India, Egypt, Peru, Cuba, Indonesia and the United States and has been applied to many different crops as well, such as rice, corn, cotton, citrus, pears and apples (Dover 1985). In many cases it has resulted in reduced spraying costs by decreasing the amount and frequency of pesticide spraying, while maintaining the same or better protection against crop damage that was achieved through previous pest management schemes. The success stories are numerous. For example, the first I P M program in 1956 in Peru reduced cotton farmers' pesticide costs from 30 percent of their production costs to a mere 3 to 5 percent, while significantly reducing the amount of destruction caused by pesticide resistant insects (Sattaur 1988:48; Dover 1985:47). A n IPM program in the Philippines saved $20.4 million between 1984 and 1990 by reducing pesticide use while at the same time crop yields increased (Panel for Collaborative Research 1992:23-24). Despite the many successes, it must be remembered that these instances are isolated and it is difficult to draw the conclusion from these cases that I P M has been a widespread

58

success. "Thericepest management effort in Southeast Asia is often singled out as perhaps the most successful IPM program in the developing countries. However, IPM approaches are used in only 3.7% of thericegrowing area of Asia" (A.I.D. 1990:6). Even in the best of cases its application has been limited. Evaluation of IPM is complicated by the fact that farmers rarely adopt the entire system but rather accept only the parts that they feel fit their needs. Each farmer adopts a different part of the package creating their own specialized package. They select those components which work best for them "taking into consideration economic, physical, and social resources and constraints as well as the goals of the farming operation," in other words they adapt it to their context (Ridgley and Brush 1992:372). Since I P M adoption is not all or nothing, but occurs in varying degrees, it is difficult to evaluate the success of the program.

Sustainability Despite the fact that only a small number of farmers scattered throughout the world have fully implemented IPM, it still represents a move toward sustainability, no matter how small scaled that move may be at present. Those farmers w h o have utilized I P M strategies have been able to reduce the amount of pesticides that they use. They have used natural controls in combination with smaller applications of chemicals, translating into less damage to the environment (soil, water and biota). I P M also reduces the problems with pest resistance to control methods. It maintains the natural balance of organisms thereby avoiding decimation of non-target species which can eventually lead to a resurgence of the original pest problem or a secondary pest outbreak (Council on Environmental Quality 1972; Panel for Collaborative Research 1992). By controlling the pest population instead of seeking to eradicate pests, this

59

approach maintains ecosystem diversity which lends to system stability. Also, by decreasing the use of harmful pesticides IPM reduces the risks to human health. This is no insignificant accomplishment because it is estimated that every year 2 million people are poisoned by pesticides, 40,000 of these accidents are fatal (Sattaur 1988:49). In all, the application of integrated pest management technology means moving agriculture towards sustainability.

Conclusions The implementation of I P M has not been flawless and in many cases it has not been complete. As mentioned above few farmers accept the package in its entirety, choosing instead to adopt only parts of it. Even though it is designed for a particular context this does not guarantee that farmers will adopt it as such. The pear IPM practices were developed for a particular micro-climate and were field tested in the orchards of farmers who participated in this study. The practices were evaluated both economically and agronomically and deemed to be beneficial on both counts. In spite of all these seemingly positive elements of the diffusion process, our study illustrates a high degree of selective adoption (Ridgley and Brush 1992:376). This can be explained in part by the fact that changing pest control strategies is not just a matter of substituting one technology for another but involves changing behavior as well (Perkins and Pimentel 1979:13). IPM is more management intensive than traditional pest control methods and requires a good deal more work from farmers (Ridgley and Brush 1992:368). The constant monitoring of field conditions and the calculations necessary to determine the optimal pest control method is quite complex and potentially formidable to farmers. Changing technologies is also especially risky for the poorest of farmers w h o cannot afford to lose a crop. "IPM is sometimes promoted as an environmentally beneficial

60

technology whose long-term benefits may be greater than the short-term benefits" (Ridgley and Brush 1992:374). This may interest those w h o own their land and w h o have the luxury to trade instant gratification for long-term sustainability. The poorest of the poor may not be willing to take the chance on a new technology when they are accustomed to the old one. Habituation to pesticide use and a fear of crop loss are serious impediments to the implementation of IPM (Council on Environmental Quality 1972:viii). Aside from resistance by individual farmers, national realities and government policies can adversely impact the implementation of I P M programs. Transferring this technology to less developed countries is complicated by "technical, institutional, socioeconomic, educational, and policy constraints" (Panel for Collaborative Research 1992:1). Policy constraints are often in the form of policies which make environmentally unsound practices economically attractive. "Government positions on pesticides-especially regarding the extent to which they are subsidized and used in the input packages for the so-called green revolution crops-are often major impediments to the adoption of IPM" (Panel for Collaborative Research 1992:3-4). Without an end to pesticide subsidies it will be difficult to achieve widespread adoption of IPM. In the cases where integrated pest management is adopted it moves farming toward sustainability. The most obvious explanation for why IPM technology is more sustainable than Green Revolution technology is the difference in initial motivations. I P M was specifically designed to be sustainable whereas the Green Revolution was meant to be an intermediate technology sufficing until a more permanent solution could be derived. What is most telling here is the way in which the IPM designers instilled sustainability into their program.

61

The crucial element was an understanding that one specific package could not solve all pest problems and that solutions would have to have a local orientation. "Culturally, pest control must accommodate a variety of economic, social, political, philosophical, aesthetic, and ethical factors important to society. A multitude of cultural factors join to create constellations of concerns surrounding and in part defining each specific pest problem" (Perkins and Pimentel 1979:13). This included an understanding that pests cannot be isolated from their context. "Crop plants, pest organisms (insects, weeds, plant pathogens, and others), and man, together with the physical environment, make up the unified ecosystem. Pest control had to be recognized as an activity that could alter the entire ecosystem with both beneficial and deleterious results" (Perkins 1982:79). With this in mind technologies for controlling pests took into account the overall context of the pest problem. This element of the IPM approach is made very clear in the following quote: Is a given technology effective? That is often the principal question asked. But asking 'Is it safe? Where will the technique be applied? W h o will use it? H o w will safety be determined? What ecological systems are atrisk?'broadens the context. In the end, the issues of efficacy and safety can be addressed only if a given technology is seen as a component of a system, not as an independent 'free body.' Pest-control methods themselves are not inherently safe or risky: the way the method is applied determinesrisk(Dover 1985:7).

The integrated pest management program was made to be sustainable through the development of a flexible scheme that could be adapted to the particulars of each location where it is implemented. This flexibility enables the program to work within local contexts, preserving the heterogeneity of agriculture as well as ecosystem diversity.

62

C H A P T E R VI

ZAMBIA C A N A D A W H E A T D E V E L O P M E N T PROJECT

Project Overview The Zambia Canada Wheat Development Project, also referred to as the Zamcan Wheat Project, was largely funded by the Canadian International Development Agency with some funding contributed by the Zambian government as well. It was initiated in 1975, with the intention of promoting "large-scale wheat production under rainfed conditions" (Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b

1991:74). The site of the project is

Mbala, a town in the Northern Province of Zambia. The first year of planting began in 1979 under the direction of the Saskatchewan Agricultural Development Corporation (SADC). This chapter focuses most heavily on phase II of the project which ran from 1979 to 1983. Phase in, running from 1983 until the end of the project in 1989, did not focus on wheat production per se but on researching local land to determine suitable locations for growing wheat. The Northern Province is almost entirely within the Northern High Rainfall Zone of Zambia. The area is also "characterized by highly leached, relatively infertile, ferralitic soils" (Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b

1991:18). The crops typically grown

in this area include maize, rice, millet, cassava and sorghum. Traditionally the farmers of the area practice shifting cultivation, farming a piece of land for five years before leaving it fallow for twenty to thirty years at a time. The local residents have developed this system of farming to cope with the low fertility of their soils.

63

chitemene,

The traditional farrning system that dominates in the Northern Province is a type of shifting axe and hoe cultivation, adapted to areas of high rainfall and leached soils. Trees are lopped or cut, and the branches and wood are piled up for burning in the center of the cleared area. Cultivation is confined close to the burned patch, where the ash layer, which is raked out, helps overcome acidity and the inherently low soil fertility. The heat from the burning controls weed growth. The continued use of the land extends over three to five years, with the principal crops being finger millet, cassava, and maize (Blackwell, GoodwiUie and W e b b 1991:18). In the past, this system has been sustainable, given the low population density in the Northern Province. Currendy it appears as though the system of shifting cultivation may have to be modified because of population increases; the population density has passed the four-people per square kilometer threshold that the area can sustainably support under the chitemene

system. With more people depending on the

same area of land for sustenance, fallow periods have decreased in duration and more land is being cleared overall. It is under these conditions that the Zamcan project for continuous cropping of wheat was initiated.

Design and Implementation The goal of the project was to introduce large-scale production of wheat into Northern Zambia. If successful this would lead to regional self-sufficiency in food crops, reducing the need for Zambia to spend hard currency to import food. Since wheat was not grown in Northern Zambia at the time of the project, there were no local models to follow. As such, the project was designed to mimic wheat farming in Canada. N o effort was made to consult with local farmers to benefit from their knowledge about the farming conditions, nor were they asked if such a project was even desirable. Not only did the project coordinators lack the insight of the local farmers, but they were also unable to gather information about the site themselves. This was caused

64

by the problems they had finding and keeping staff members during the commencement of the project. The delays in hiring research staff, in particular a soil scientist, meant that they were unable to research the local soils in the production fields. Despite the recognition that this research was necessary for designing a successful project, the coordinators went forward without adequate knowledge of the local soils.

Project Outcome The project was not successful in meeting its own production goals. Even though 1,000 hectares of bush were cleared in 1979, the first year, problems with equipment procurement and operation resulted in only 335 hectares being planted with wheat, though the target was to plant 850 hectares. O n the limited number of hectares that were planted the yield was disappointing. The project coordinators were expecting a yield of 1.7 tonnes per hectare, but in the end the yield was only 0.34 tonnes per hectare. Not only did they fail to meet their production goal but the yield was so low that it fell below 30 percent of economic viability. Instead of the anticipated total production of 570 tonnes their total yield was only 115 tonnes of wheat, far from the original goal. The low yields were attributed to several possible causes. The number of hectares in wheat cultivation was lower than projected for two main reasons: due to the unanticipated frequency of rain, the possible labor days were less than planned for and equipment procurement problems limited planting. The most significant factor affecting the yield per hectare was thought to be the low p H of the soil (between 4.4 and 3.9); wheat is known to grow poorly in acidic soils. Preparing for the 1980 wheat crop, the project coordinators decided they would apply lime to the fields in order to raise the soil pH. Despite the benefit of one year of

65

experience, the yields for the 1980 crop year also fell below their projections; they were hoping to get a yield of 1250 tonnes of wheat and only achieved a yield of 480 tonnes. The reasons given this time were that the application of lime was too shallow, causing the root system to be shallow, this combined with the timing of planting allowed drought to affect some of the crop. After two years of low yields and difficulties caused by the timing and heaviness of rain, the coordinators decided to consult the local weather data from the past fifty years. This led them to the conclusions that wheat should have been planted earlier in the year to take full and best advantage of the seasonal rain, and that the seed should be planted as quickly as possible because the window of opportunity for planting is small. With this in mind, the 1981 planting was begun earlier in the year and a reasonable work schedule was developed allowing for potential rain delays. To avoid the yield problems that were blamed on shallow liming they intended to deep lime 240 hectares. In the end they were only able to deep lime one of the four fields (100 hectares) because there was not a sufficient supply of lime available at the necessary time; the remaining supply arrived too late. At the time of the annual report the precise yields for 1981 were not yet known, but it was believed that they fell short of the goal for that year. After three years of trying to grow wheat in Zambia, it was concluded that "with present wheat varieties the p H of the soil is too low to grow wheat" ( S A D C 1981 cropping plans: 1). Even though the project designers were aware that the soil needed to be limed to adjust the pH, they were not yet knowledgeable about the appropriate amount, frequency and depth of application. They also found that even with liming the yields dropped significantly between the second and third year of cropping. In addition, it was concluded that the rain was more than necessary to grow wheat; in fact it was too much. They suspected that the heavy rains caused nutrient leaching, carrying the

66

natural nutrients as well as the applied lime beyond the reach of the roots. " W e do not know if w e can stop or even slow down this loss by leaching" ( S A D C 1981 cropping plans: 1). Thus the weather may present an insurmountable obstacle to growing wheat in the area, even with the use of lime. W h e n it became obvious that the original project production goals were unrealizable in the initialtimeframe, the project shifted focus. Instead of having production of wheat as the main goal, the project was turned into a research project aimed at determining appropriate planting methods and locations for growing wheat in Zambia. "With yields at less than 3 0 % of economic viability the whole 1000 hectare farm must be considered to be an 'applied research farm'" ( S A D C 1981 annual report: 1).

Sustainability This project clearly has not achieved its original goal of significant wheat production. In addition to failing to achieve the production goals the project is not sustainable for this locale. Continuous cropping of wheat, without rotating crops or without the consistent and appropriate application of lime, can result in serious environmental problems, including soil erosion and loss of soil fertility. Continuing to cultivate the land without adequate liming not only results in poor yields, but can also cause further degradation to the land, actually destroying the little fertility that occurs naturally. Immediately after fallowing the soil is very acidic and cropping on this land without the traditional dispersal of ash only serves to increase the level of acidity. A p H of 4.4 is reckoned as a critical value, ^ for with this degree of acidity both aluminium and manganese start to be released into the soil water, being displaced by hydrogen ions. Both are toxic to plants and impair the growth of roots. As they leach down into the subsoil, they 1 4

T h e p H in Mbala is between 3.9 and 4.4.

67

limit the penetration of roots, and this may lead to drought problems for the crop. Another problem of a falling p H is that phosphate becomes locked in insoluble form, and the plants can make no use of the supply introduced with fertilizer (Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b 1991:28). These reasons explain why crop yields diminish as the soil becomes more and more acidic. Another problem caused by the lowering of the p H level is that the "natural crumb structure" of the soil begins to break down. This means that the soil becomes finer and topsoil can be lost through erosion or leaching down into the subsoil.*5

Table 6-1. Zamcan Wheat Project Sustainability Assessment

Is project oriented to needs of users? Is focus on w o m e n or rural disadvantaged? Is there local control? Are local human resources (skills, knowledge, values, organizations) used? Are local materials (land, energy) used? Is project sustainable in long term? Is aid limited in amount to prevent aid dependency? Are new group alliances formed or is poor-rich gap widened? Is regional coordination sufficient or is there conflict with regional plans? Is there shift in power toward disadvantaged groups?

Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Pos. Neg.

Source: Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b 1991:36.

In their document on environment and development, Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b use a matrix to evaluate the socioenvironmental aspects of development projects. They include questions which may not always be asked in reference to all projects but which would help indicate to a project manager whether or not the project promotes sustainability. Table 6-1 gives the list of these questions along with the authors' responses regarding the Zamcan wheat project. A "Neg." indicates that the project fails

l^This problem has since been addressed by the research portion of the project. Acid and aluminum-tolerant varieties of wheat have been bred with the use of genetic material from Brazilian wheat making it possible to achieve substantial yields without requiring the application of lime (Little 1988:89).

68

to move toward sustainability in this area and a "Pos." indicates that the project succeeds. Note that this project rated quite poorly overall. "The Zamcan wheat project ... underlines graphically, and on a large scale, some of the dangers posed by current production techniques that are being encouraged in the Northern Province of Zambia. Only at great environmental expense can an alien technology operate with any degree of success" (Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b 1991:74).

Conclusions Many of the problems encountered in the Zambia Canada Wheat Project resulted from the choice of an inappropriate technology; the technologies that the Canadians wanted to use did not fit well with the local conditions. In particular, the unpredictability of the rainy season caused many problems. The important role that the weather played in low yields was pointed out in the project summary. Yields are again disappointing. One is inclined to blame the weather,... Weather is one of the natural resources which even the most developed country in the world has not learned how to either control or modify. W e must learn therefore how to adapt our farming practices to the variability of the weather ( S A D C 1981 annual report: 1). Although the weather was a contributing factor it should have been anticipated and therefore not been a problem. Only through complete ignorance of the seasonal changes in the Northern Province of Zambia could such a mistake have been made. The rainfall amount and frequency is so varied that project planning, especially for a crop such as wheat that requires rain at specific times, is difficult. It is ludicrous to plan based on average rainfall amounts since in most years the rainfall is significantly different from the average. For example, during the months of January and February, when time is of the essence to get the seeds in the ground, the variance is great. In

69

January there are 12 to 28 days of rain and in February there can be 12 to 25 days of rain. This makes it difficult or impossible to make and maintain a planting schedule. Rainfall impacts not only the planting period but also the yield per hectare of wheat. The rain during April and May, which is crucial to the maturation of the wheat, was shown to have a significant impact on the yield. Within the two years of cropping 11

covered in the annual report, there was a great deal of variation. [I] n 1980 April rain was 3 2 % above normal and M a y rain 4 5 % below normal while this year [1981] the variation was just the opposite. April 6 3 % below normal and M a y 2 3 % above normal" ( S A D C 1981 annual report: 15). In addition to their ignorance of local rainfall variability, project planners were seemingly ignorant of the local soils and indigenous methods for maintaining soil fertility. "Chief among the problems appears to have been the complete absence of project planning in relation to the environment. Specifically, there was a lack of appreciation of soils and a failure to provide a soil scientist" (Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b 1991:74). Instead the assumption was made that Canadian farming could be replicated on Zambian soil; it took large sums of Canadian development dollars and three years to find out that this was not the case. Studying local practices and talking with local farmers would have revealed much about the nature of the local soil. The traditional practice of farming land for five years and then leaving it fallow for twenty to thirty years was one way farmers maintained the fertility of the land. The locals also knew that it was necessary to burn the vegetation on the field and spread the ashes to rninimize weed problems and to counterbalance the soil acidity. Had the project planners consulted the farmers in the area they would have known that the soil fertility was low, that the soils were acidic and that the soil fertility quickly decreases once the land is cleared. "A failure to keep open

70

local communication also can have other consequences, as exemplified in the Zamcan Wheat Project, where a failure to talk to local farmers (either commercial or smallholder) led to a disastrous technological failure" (Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b 1991:112). Thus the project was unsustainable because of the failure of the project planners to consider the ways that local conditions would relate to the foreign technology. The Canadian Development Agency even recognized in their project document the crucial role that local conditions play in determining the success of the project. "The reasons [for low yields] are many, but the initial and chief factor was a lack of appreciation of the soils and failure to provide a co-operant with in depth knowledge of soil science" ( S A D C 1981 annual report: 19). Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b are quite critical of this particular deficiency. "[T]he incoming expert should never assume that he or she 'knows' about local conditions. The assumptions made by the Canadian International Development Agency on the Zamcan Wheat Project in Kasama, Zambia, is a classic example of experts acting in the complete absence of local research" (Blackwell, Goodwillie and W e b b 1991:111). They assumed that if they knew how to grow wheat in Canada then they could grow wheat in Zambia. The problem with this approach was recognized somewhat by the Canadian staff and attempts were made to avoid these problems with the 1982 crop. This awareness can be seen in the 1982 Cropping Plans. In the past too many decisions have been made on conjecture, one year's experience. For example, boron deficiency, nemotodes, presuming soils 5 k m apart and two or three hundred feet difference in elevation would have the same characteristics; or that research done 1000 kms away is applicable to the production farm situation. With these things in mind we have drawn up plans not yet in detail of the 1982 cropping season ( S A D C 1981 cropping plans: 2).

71

It was at this time that the project shifted from wheat production to research. Any plans of extending the technology out into the communities was postponed until they learned more about producing wheat in that area themselves. Had more information been known about the locale of the project before planning had occurred, many of the sustainability problems could have been avoided. Although it is obvious that the traditional chitemene

system cannot remain sustainable

with the increase in population, this does not mean that the local knowledge that went into the evolution of that practice is unimportant. Just because a local system needs modification does not mean that a completely foreign system should replace it. It is much more successful to adapt a technology to a local area than to try to adapt a local area to a technology; it would be more fruitful for the Canadian International Development Agency to try to find a suitable crop for Zambia rather than searching for a way to grow wheat on the unsuitable natural conditions found in Northern Zambia.

72

C H A P T E R VII

HILLSIDE F A R M I N G IN N Y A R U R E M B O , U G A N D A

Project Overview This chapter does not deal with a development project or program in the same vein as the Green Revolution or Integrated Pest Management; rather it concerns a local response to national regulation. This case study examines the soil conservation techniques applied to hillside farming in a Southwest Ugandan Subparish called Nyarurembo. The information in this chapter is based on a 1990 collaborative field study by researchers from the World Resources Institute, Uganda's Makere University and a local non-governmental organization. The study reviews erosion control techniques employed on three hills, two of which are completely within the Subparish and one which straddles the boundary that separates the Nyarurembo and Kabindi Subparishes. O n the whole, the hillside soil, being volcanic in nature, is quite fertile. The shallow nature of the topsoil, in combination with the slope however, makes it susceptible to erosion. The local farmers were pushed off the desirable level lands and onto the hillsides by a population increase in the early 1900s; most likely these lands have been under cultivation since that time. Before the land was cleared the hills supported an open-canopy montane rain forest. N o natural forest remains in the area; all land is either farmed or fallow but in between crops. Poor hillside farming practices resulted in environmental degradation and productivity losses that became noticeable by the mid-1920s.

73

Soil erosion can strip land of its topsoil taking all the fertility with it. Once this happens the productive capacity of the land is diminished making it increasingly difficult to raise crops. Erosion also makes unsustainable transgressions against waterways since soil that washes off of hillsides becomes polluting sediment that is destructive of water life. W h e n severe, erosion can reduce the fertility of the soil such that little vegetation will grow there and eventually the rains scar the land with gullies making it a virtual wasteland; such a situation is clearly not sustainable (Lake and Shady 1993:9). To avoid the problems of soil erosion, the local District to which Nyarurembo and Kabindi Subparishes belong passed a series of by-laws in 1939 mandating and regulating soil conservation techniques for hillside farmers. The by-laws were very specific, calling for 3-foot or wider soil mounds (bunds) spaced no farther apart than 16 feet. These bunds were to be constructed down the side of the mountain. "The by-laws were well-implemented and were enforced by the local chiefs. By 1945, virtually all the communities in the district were complying with the by-laws, and, by 1949, the area had reached a standard of soil conservation perhaps unsurpassed anywhere in Africa" (Tukahirwa and Veit 1992:9). A s of 1990, the Nyarurembo Subparish consisted of 867 people living in 5 communities. Agriculture in the area is characterized by two main growing seasons with most land being cultivated during both periods. Agriculture produces the main source of income for these families who own an average of 1 to 1.5 hectares. This figure represents their total land holdings, which are usually spread out over 5 to 10 separate plots of land up to six kilometers apart. The typical hillside crops include cowpeas, sweet potatoes and sometimes beans, sorghum, Irish potatoes and maize.

74

Although these three hills exist within a small geographic area, and there are many similarities among them, different soil conservation techniques have been used.

Design and Implementation The terracing methods employed in Nyarurembo Subparish vary by hill because of ecological and socioeconomic differences, despite the government mandate for a particular form of soil conservation. The soil conservation practices in Nyarurembo are a result of interactions between the subcounty agricultural extension officer and the local farmers. The farmers taught the extension officer about their local conditions and the extension officer helped them choose the most appropriate method for their given situation. Each method was specifically designed for the particular circumstances of the hill in question, and thus the development of the practices will be discussed separately for Nyarurembo, Sagitwe and Karambi hills. There are three different types of terracing used in this area: bench, strip and band terracing. Bench terracing involves making permanent, level terraces on the slope of a hill. The resulting steps follow the natural contour lines of the hill and vary in width and height according to the soil structure and the slope of the hill. In strip terracing, contoured bands of cropped land are separated by narrower strips of semi-permanent vegetation (usually tall grass). The land between the grass is cropped for a number of years until the terraces that build up behind the grasses become unstable. At this point the terraces are torn down, the soil is redistributed on the hill and strips of land are replanted, starting the whole process over. Band terracing is characterized by alternating bands of crop and fallow, the width of which depends upon the slope of the hill. This gives the general form of each method, more detail will be given when they

75

are ascribed to specific locations. A summary of the different methods employed and the reasons why they were chosen for the particular hill is given in Table 7-1.

Nyarurembo Hill Straddling the border between the Nyarurembo and Kabindi Subparishes, Nyarurembo is not only the largest hill, but it also has the highest elevation of those studied. Terracing was first employed on this land as early as 1940. The 250 farmers that work this land come from all of the five communities in the area. The average farmer owns in total about 1.5 hectares, a portion of which is on the hill. Individual farmer plots on the hill are generally small, though some farmers do own several non­ contiguous sections on the hill. The method of erosion control that has been chosen for this hill is band terracing. Contour lines are marked every 26 feet and in the resulting bands farmers alternate bands of crops with bands that are left fallow. Serious erosion from the cropped bands is prevented by having a band of natural vegetation growing in the fallowed areas to hold the soil and keep it from washing off the hill. Nyarurembo hill farmers double crop their bands for a full year before they switch over to the previously fallowed land and let the recently farmed land rest. In the first season of the year, most of the farmers grow sweet potatoes; these particular sweet potatoes take longer than the average time to mature, but the extra time is compensated for by the good market price that is paid for this locally desirable variety of sweet potatoes. During the second growing season of the year, the favored crop on Nyarurembo hill is wheat. The high elevation of this hill is conducive to wheat production. The farmers have adapted their particular method of band terracing to fit the crops they prefer to grow; it would be difficult to grow wheat and this variety of

76

sweet potatoes if they had to fallow their land every 6 months as some farmers practicing band terracing do. The farmers' reasons for choosing the band terracing method are many. Band terracing is less labor-intensive than other alternatives such as strip and bench terracing. Because of the steepness of the slope, strip terraces would accumulate a good deal of soil. In only a few years they would have to be knocked down and redistributed over the hill. The steepness of the hill would also make bench terraces difficult to maintain. A labor-intensive method would not be suitable for this hill because it would be quite difficult to coordinate the 250 farmers coming from five villages to perform timeconsuming work. Instead with their method of band terracing they must only agree to have their crops harvested by the end of the second cropping season so they can all be present at one time for re-demarcating the hill. The farmers are able to double crop the same band of land for a year at a time because their soils are relatively fertile. They use green manure, a process of turning plant matter into the soil, to maintain soil fertility. Their soil is fertile enough that this is sufficient and they do not have to plant a leguminous crop such as beans or cowpeas. By operating on a 12-month cycle they have more flexibility in the crops that they grow than the farmers that choose to use a 6-month cycle. One drawback with band terracing is that in order for it to be an effective control over erosion, one half of the hill must lay fallow at all times, making it undesirable for farmers with small land holdings. In this case each farmer owns therightto 1.5 hectares in both hillside and valley lands combined and thus does not find it too limiting to leave one half of their hillside land fallow.

Table 7-1. Socioeconomic and Ecological Characteristics Influencing Terracing Type

Location

Type of Terracing

Sagitwe Hill

Band

-200

3

Sagitwe Crater

Bench